What is different about the L&L?

[Theo]

I was looking at the BW statement about water supplies. L&L closed, HNC open with a 10% chance of being closed before the end of the season, ditto the Rochdale.

 

What is the problem with the L&L? We did all three canals in the very wet summer of 2008 and thought that the Rochdale would be the most likely to suffer from water shortages. There was a really bad leak in the fist pound below the summit on the western side. I drained almost to nothing while we were waiting overnight for passage across the summit.

 

Nick

[journeyperson]

Does it depend on a supply of water from reservoirs that are used principally for domestic and commercial water supplies which are given priority when levels start to get low? I know the Rochdale has always had a supply problem but maybe its reservoirs have less demand from domestic and commercial users. I'm just speculating.

[gaggle]

locks like this may play a part.

[Pluto]

Does it depend on a supply of water from reservoirs that are used principally for domestic and commercial water supplies which are given priority when levels start to get low? I know the Rochdale has always had a supply problem but maybe its reservoirs have less demand from domestic and commercial users. I'm just speculating.

Seven of the Rochdale reservoirs were sold to local authorities in 1923, two years after the Rochdale Canal Company ceased carrying. Some compensation water does still come from the various reservoirs which supplied the canal, but not all that much. The L&LC still has all its reservoirs, and when the canal was at its most heavily used supplied water for at least 50,000 boat journeys each year, the canal carrying 2,250,000 tons annually and the average trip being about twenty miles. This is more than ten times the number of trips through locks on the canal today. The water shortage on the canal is caused by excessive leakage, the result of many years of poor maintenance standards. Around 1900, the canal's engineer reported that it was impossible to maintain the canal adequately with less than one man per mile, and his staff at that time numbered over 200. Today, there can only be a tenth of this number. Modern technology has not helped, given the requirements of H&S. Once lock gates could be changed easily in a couple of days. How many weeks does it need today?

[RichardH]

Some might also question the increased pressure on supplies such as the Ribble Link and Liverpool Link

[MartinClark]

The Liverpool Canal Link and the Rufford Branch (which leads to the Ribble Link) take water from the 27 mile long pound between Appley Bridge and Eldonian, which is fed from the River Douglas further upstream. (Dean Locks? Scholes?) This part of the canal is not dependant on reservoir feeds which is why it is still open at present. It would only be closed if river levels become too low.

[Pluto]

The Liverpool Canal Link and the Rufford Branch (which leads to the Ribble Link) take water from the 27 mile long pound between Appley Bridge and Eldonian, which is fed from the River Douglas further upstream. (Dean Locks? Scholes?) This part of the canal is not dependant on reservoir feeds which is why it is still open at present. It would only be closed if river levels become too low.

When they purchased the River Douglas Navigation in 1772, the L&LC Company obtained the rights to all water from the River Douglas. They allowed Liverpool Corporation to build Rivington Reservoir in the 1840s, but required a supply equal to ten locks daily to be supplied from Pepper Mill weir in Wigan. This supply enters the canal opposite the junction for the Leigh Branch. A further supply was taken through the regulating lock, linking the canal to the river at Dean. When this was taken out of use, an underground supply was constructed which enters the canal below Appley Locks. Before the river quality improved after the construction of Hoscar water treatment plant, this supply was only used in an emergency as the quality of the water severely damaged anything living n the canal. There was little weed in the Liverpool Pool following Douglas water being used as a supply, so there were some benefits.

[Jim Riley]

I was looking at the BW statement about water supplies. L&L closed, HNC open with a 10% chance of being closed before the end of the season, ditto the Rochdale.

 

What is the problem with the L&L? We did all three canals in the very wet summer of 2008 and thought that the Rochdale would be the most likely to suffer from water shortages. There was a really bad leak in the fist pound below the summit on the western side. I drained almost to nothing while we were waiting overnight for passage across the summit.

 

Nick

 

And I chose a permanent mooring there....... probably the highest in the country apart from the trip boat at huddersfield tunnel.

[CanalWalker]

The closure has given BW the chance to do their winter maintenance now, so they will be repairing lock gates etc now, so some good will come of it.

[MartinClark]

And I chose a permanent mooring there....... probably the highest in the country apart from the trip boat at huddersfield tunnel.

 

...and apart from the many, many boats moored in the marinas on the Upper Peak Forest and upper level of the Macclesfield Canal, which are around 29 feet higher than the Leeds and Liverpool summit.

 

Highest Canal Summits

[Doorman]

locks like this may play a part.

 

 

Yes, that and many others like it on the system. Maybe installing a few square bollards would help

 

The Liverpool Canal Link and the Rufford Branch (which leads to the Ribble Link) take water from the 27 mile long pound between Appley Bridge and Eldonian, which is fed from the River Douglas further upstream. (Dean Locks? Scholes?) This part of the canal is not dependant on reservoir feeds which is why it is still open at present. It would only be closed if river levels become too low.

 

 

Up until recently, it was 150mm down on normal levels. I've still got all of the carrier bags that I trawled up to prove it.

 

Mike

[RichardH]

The Liverpool Canal Link and the Rufford Branch (which leads to the Ribble Link) take water from the 27 mile long pound between Appley Bridge and Eldonian, which is fed from the River Douglas further upstream. (Dean Locks? Scholes?) This part of the canal is not dependant on reservoir feeds which is why it is still open at present. It would only be closed if river levels become too low.

 

 

It would if the pumping station which operates this hadn't been condemmed by H&S and as a result been out of service for most of the year.

 

Temporary pumps have been installed since the closure.

 

Greenberfield Top Lock already has had new gates lowered into place this week.

 

Which is nice..........

[Pete of Ebor]

The closure has given BW the chance to do their winter maintenance now, so they will be repairing lock gates etc now, so some good will come of it.

 

or more likely we'll need need to put brollies up to ward off the falling porcine excrement...

[CanalWalker]

I dont see why they would bother to lie about it.

[Travis]

150 mm?

[Pluto]

It would if the pumping station which operates this hadn't been condemmed by H&S and as a result been out of service for most of the year.

 

Temporary pumps have been installed since the closure.

The pump at Liverpool Locks was only installed in 1934 to compensate for traffic using the locks. By then, there was not so much coal coming down from Wigan, probably around 1 million tons annually, and the canal was beginning to deteriorate. Leakage must have been increasing even then as subsequently the level of the Liverpool Pool was lowered to reduce losses. The pumps would make the canal in Liverpool slightly saline which was a big help in keeping weed down. Pity it doesn't do that today.

[MartinClark]

150 mm?

 

That's very nearly six inches! That canal is not particularly shallow so I wouldn't have thought that a drop of six inches would cause problems if you keep to the middle and reduce speed a little. If you want plastic bags (and more) you should try the Ashton Canal with a boat with a draught of almost 4 feet!

[Doorman]

150 mm?

 

 

Please don't get me ranting about metrication. It's only 37 years since this country agreed to conform to the metric system and yet there are still many who can't get their heads around it!

[Doorman]

That's very nearly six inches! That canal is not particularly shallow so I wouldn't have thought that a drop of six inches would cause problems if you keep to the middle and reduce speed a little. If you want plastic bags (and more) you should try the Ashton Canal with a boat with a draught of almost 4 feet!

 

 

1200mm that's not a boat it's a dredger! We followed your technique regarding staying in the channel, but you have to steer to the bank every time you see a decent watering hole It was then that we encountered problems due to the boat grounding away from the bank. Just as well that my wife's a dab hand with the pole, he's quite helpful too!

Edited August 14, 2010 by Doorman

[twocvbloke]

Please don't get me ranting about metrication. It's only 37 years since this country agreed to conform to the metric system and yet there are still many who can't get their heads around it!

 

I started off learning the Metric system, and have converted myself to Imperial, I have more issues working out what length something is in Metric than I do in Imperial.....

 

Probably something to do with interacting with our 'merican friends across the pond, seeing how they still use the old system (and some of the measurements we have in Imperial are semi-metricised, so things like Gallons are different cos they took the old system we had with them when they moved to america, then later ours were altered to make converting to metric easier), it is annoying though, cos Metric is so much simpler, but Imperial is so widespread...

[Timleech]

Probably something to do with interacting with our 'merican friends across the pond, seeing how they still use the old system (and some of the measurements we have in Imperial are semi-metricised, so things like Gallons are different cos they took the old system we had with them when they moved to america, then later ours were altered to make converting to metric easier), it is annoying though, cos Metric is so much simpler, but Imperial is so widespread...

 

Could you elaborate on the gallon thing? I always thought their gallons (and some other measures) were smaller so that the numbers looked bigger and more impressive :lol:

Yes I know there's a more historical reason, but don't understand the bit about ours being changed to make metrication easier (apart from some tiny changes to make equivalents such as 1" = 25.4mm exact)?

 

 

Tim

[twocvbloke]

Could you elaborate on the gallon thing? I always thought their gallons (and some other measures) were smaller so that the numbers looked bigger and more impressive ;)

Yes I know there's a more historical reason, but don't understand the bit about ours being changed to make metrication easier (apart from some tiny changes to make equivalents such as 1" = 25.4mm exact)?

 

 

Tim

 

Well, I don't know about being more impressive, but yes, their gallons are smaller, so one UK gallon is 1.201 USGal, and converting MPG from UK to US makes a UK car look inefficient, 50 UK MPG is 41.63 US MPG, it's all confusing really, but length and area (flat & Cubic) remain the same, it's just the volumes that are messed up...

 

It's like you can get 4 pints out of 2 Litres (I've certainly proved that by using a pint glass to drink stuff out of 2L bottles), in the US you'd get 4 1/2 (give or take), assuming they have pint glasses similar to ours...

 

Let's just say, they're out of touch with their measurements...

 

I'm still not 100% sure why ours were changed between the time that the US was being populated and now, but, they were, so, yeah...

[Doorman]

Well, I don't know about being more impressive, but yes, their gallons are smaller, so one UK gallon is 1.201 USGal, and converting MPG from UK to US makes a UK car look inefficient, 50 UK MPG is 41.63 US MPG, it's all confusing really, but length and area (flat & Cubic) remain the same, it's just the volumes that are messed up...

 

It's like you can get 4 pints out of 2 Litres (I've certainly proved that by using a pint glass to drink stuff out of 2L bottles), in the US you'd get 4 1/2 (give or take), assuming they have pint glasses similar to ours...

 

Let's just say, they're out of touch with their measurements...

 

I'm still not 100% sure why ours were changed between the time that the US was being populated and now, but, they were, so, yeah...

 

Like our language, they've changed that to enable the american drawl to sound even more tedious

[Doorman]

I started off learning the Metric system, and have converted myself to Imperial, I have more issues working out what length something is in Metric than I do in Imperial.....

 

Probably something to do with interacting with our 'merican friends across the pond, seeing how they still use the old system (and some of the measurements we have in Imperial are semi-metricised, so things like Gallons are different cos they took the old system we had with them when they moved to america, then later ours were altered to make converting to metric easier), it is annoying though, cos Metric is so much simpler, but Imperial is so widespread...

 

 

Not so, the imperial & metric system is like anologue and digital, embrace the change and reap the rewards.

[Doorman]

or more likely we'll need need to put brollies up to ward off the falling porcine excrement...