Useful New Canal

[Tiny]

Reading ‘Waterways World’ I did like the suggestion for a new connector canal - a lock free canal between the bottom of Adderley on the Shroppie and the bottom of Frankton on the Monty. According to the proposer there are no major works needed apart from a short cutting and getting under one railway.

The canal would solve a lot of problems (for boating the Monty by providing plenty of water which the rationing at Frankton does not allowing boats to get to Maesbury and beyond - to Newtown even if the ecos can be stopped building their 'No filthy English Water in Wales' stop lock at the border. Of course one assumes BW/CART would oppose the so called 'Wem canal' as the bosses are very pro eco on the Monty but building the canal would bring the business that BW promise but can't deliver given boat numbers.

With the Wem canal in place the objections to back-pumps at Frankton would disappear as the new canal would bring the plentiful waters of the Shroppie to the Monty to supply the locks (many yet to be restored)all the way to the restored Welshpool length 17 miles down at Wern or for back-pumping up the Frankton locks to allow them to be open full time.

 

And to add to it's usefulness as a water source and quick through route to the Monty, the Wem canal would be part of a new ring made up of itself, Frankton locks then down the lower Llangollen and up the Nantwich to Adderley Shroppie. Or be used as a route to Frankton and thence up the locks then turn left to allow a new route to Llangollen

 

All this lot for minimal outlay.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Tiny

[steve hayes]

Saw that article, looked like a good idea. As you say the NIMBYS will be out in force, CART would not support anything a rash as a new canal. But it could provide a lot of water benefits and the new cruising ring to improve the tourist numbers and get the lock holds down.

[the grinch]

curious as to why there is a need to back pump frankton? surely any lock usage would be replaced by water from Llantisilio feeder?

[Paul C]

The 'rationing' of 12 boats up and down through the Frankton junction, per day, is not for water conservation reasons, its because most of the Montgomery is an SSSI, so they have to limit the amount of boats which go on it.

[magpie patrick]

curious as to why there is a need to back pump frankton? surely any lock usage would be replaced by water from Llantisilio feeder?

 

Trouble is, as I understand it, that the Llangollen canal is one of the very few canals to have a water meter. It is also very busy and must carry a minimum of around 6 million gallons a day (this figure may not be accurate) to Hurleston Reservoirs so that the good citizens of Chester can make a cuppa and have a bath.

 

To ask the upper reaches to carry yet more for the monty is asking a lot, and the abstraction arrangements have to be considered.

 

That said, I think some groups complicate things for their own ends, and I can't see this idea for a new canal taking off. Even if it is level, it would cost £2-3 million a mile plus any complications. Of all the serious problems facing the eventual restoration of the Monty, Water supply is not near the top of the list

[the grinch]

had they not made the decision to make the weston arm a SSSI then they would have already had a head start!!

[mayalld]

curious as to why there is a need to back pump frankton? surely any lock usage would be replaced by water from Llantisilio feeder?

 

There is a limit to the abstraction at Llantisillio, and a contractual obligation to deliver a certain quantity to Hurleston reservoir.

 

In consequence, there is a limit to the total available for Frankton and Hurleston lockages.

 

There is a limit at Frankton to stop too many boats disturbing the wildlife, but even once that restriction is lifted once the nature reserves are fully established), lockage at Frankton will be limited to the amount that the "spare" water not needed at Hurleston can support

[the grinch]

thanks patrick and dave for the explanation

[Tiny]

Trouble is, as I understand it, that the Llangollen canal is one of the very few canals to have a water meter. It is also very busy and must carry a minimum of around 6 million gallons a day (this figure may not be accurate) to Hurleston Reservoirs so that the good citizens of Chester can make a cuppa and have a bath.

 

To ask the upper reaches to carry yet more for the monty is asking a lot, and the abstraction arrangements have to be considered.

 

That said, I think some groups complicate things for their own ends, and I can't see this idea for a new canal taking off. Even if it is level, it would cost £2-3 million a mile plus any complications. Of all the serious problems facing the eventual restoration of the Monty, Water supply is not near the top of the list

 

They did some tests, found the LLangollen could provide 11 million but in the tests sent the water to Crewe. Crewe said they would like more so the flow goes to them went up in 1989 from 6 to 11 million gallons a day and one assumes the money to BW increased too. How much this earns BW is subject to work confidential but if the flow ceases for more than a couple of days then BW have to pay penalties. At that stage (1989) BW could still fit back pumps if Frankton had opened but now the ecos don't like them.

 

The water to Crewe takes priority over both the Monty and Hurleston flight water so in drought no water for the Monty and in extreme conditions none for Hurleston but plenty (11 million gallons) on the rest of the Llangollen.

[magpie patrick]

I'm not sure what survey work they've done but having looked at the OS maps the canals can only be stated to be within ten (or possibly twenty) metres of the same level. that's somewhere between Bingley three rise and adding a lock to Bingley five rise. This could be overcome by moving the junction at the Shropshire Union end.

 

It would take a very accurate survey to demonstrate that the two canals are at exactly the same level, along with a huge coincidence, so I suspect one lock would be needed.

 

Haven't seen the article, what settlements would the route pass that aren't currently on a canal? That would be the secret to making this work, towns and villages looking for a tourist trade

[carlt]

had they not made the decision to make the weston arm a SSSI then they would have already had a head start!!

A Site of Special Scientific Interest is identified, not made.

[Tiny]

A Site of Special Scientific Interest is identified, not made.

 

One on the Monty came when BW wanted to block boats from using it and then melted away when they got a large grant to restore that bit.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Tiny

[Paul C]

One on the Monty came when BW wanted to block boats and then melted away when they got a large grant to restore that bit.

 

Which one? As I understand it, the SSSIs are still there but the canal, and boating, occurs too. They're not mutually exclusive. The large grant would have been for restoration to navigable standards also taking into account the SSSI status, ie extra work needed to maintain the environment as such.

[Tiny]

Which one? As I understand it, the SSSIs are still there but the canal, and boating, occurs too. They're not mutually exclusive. The large grant would have been for restoration to navigable standards also taking into account the SSSI status, ie extra work needed to maintain the environment as such.

Maesbury appeared when the locks at Aston were complete and went missing in around 2003 some years later. Locals were mistified at the start and only found out later at the end.

[magpie patrick]

Maesbury appeared when the locks at Aston were complete and went missing in around 2003 some years later. Locals were mistified at the start and only found out later at the end.

 

I understand that English Nature identified a plant species that was later proven not to be present