Could the Canal System be used to move water

[sandgrown]

Hi All,

Regarding the recent flooding in the North of England recently, and drought in the South a few years ago,with some joined up thinking could the canal system be used to move water from North to South. I did read somewhere that the EA were planning to install a pipe to link the Severn with the Thames, so the Cotswolds canal trust offered to restore the Stroudwater for much less.

is it possible?.

[furnessvale]

Hi All,

Regarding the recent flooding in the North of England recently, and drought in the South a few years ago,with some joined up thinking could the canal system be used to move water from North to South. I did read somewhere that the EA were planning to install a pipe to link the Severn with the Thames, so the Cotswolds canal trust offered to restore the Stroudwater for much less.

is it possible?.

The answer is yes but for some reason the powers that be have set their faces against it and would rather spend £billions on pipelines.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Delta9]

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/super-canal-scotland-london-water-scarcity

 

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

Edited January 25, 2016 by Delta9

[churchward]

Yes but will cost a lot of money and you have to have the canal flowing in the right direction. What happens though when we need to move water South to north like when the Severn Floods in Gloucestershire.

 

Canals are in some cases used to move water such as the Llangollen branch.

 

In anycase I don't think it is the answer to stop flooding (not enough capacity to move the water) and it is better to manage the water as close to source as possible.

[matty40s]

For most of this Spring and Summer, the Weedon and Daventry levels and reservoirs were keeping the Leicester line open down to where the River Soar takes over.

The water was being pumped up Buckby and the Watford flights for months as the summit/Welford reservoirs were not able to keep the Foxton to Leicester section in water.

So yes, water IS moved around when needed, however, to alleviate floods, massive upgrades in pumping capacity would be needed, and there may be times when canals were shut due to water flow.

[Southern Star]

I'm just wondering how the water would get up and down the locks on its own.

[matty40s]

have you not seen the back pumps in operation at Buckby, Stoke Bruerne, Watford flight??

[furnessvale]

I'm just wondering how the water would get up and down the locks on its own.

Even some of the existing fresh water pipelines have pumps in them. My own father was a linesman who ran such a pumping station.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Southern Star]

It would still be totally impractical to move water in large amounts from the north to the south of England. It may have rained a lot in the north recently and there may have been a drought in the south a few years ago but these are two totally separate facts which have no bearing on each other.

[RAB]

Even if all canals were dredged to their original depths the flow capability is miniscule compared to a river, especially if you still want to motor upstream in your narrowboat. Downstream could be fun though!

 

Edited to add - Wouldn't any flow faster than 2 mph upset the "I'm moored your going too fast brigade" (Said tongue in cheek, before someone criticises me!)

Edited January 25, 2016 by RAB

[Sabcat]

Wasn't some kind of canal system plan mooted in the 50s to do just this or have I completely imagined it?

[churchward]

I'm just wondering how the water would get up and down the locks on its own.

It of course won't get up locks unless you pump it which is not really viable on a large scale. Down locks you have enough capacity in the by-wash channels to carry the excess water as there is on the Llangollen.

 

Wasn't some kind of canal system plan mooted in the 50s to do just this or have I completely imagined it?

I think this was part of the idea of the 300ft contour canal system proposed on many occasions that would be like a national network.

[Southern Star]

The thing is, it just wouldn't be necessary. I have never known a drought in the south of England, in the sense that there is no water for drinking, cooking, bathing etc. Maybe once every five years there will be a hosepipe ban for a few weeks until it starts raining again, but generally during Summers in the south where it doesn't rain much, it doesn't rain much in the North either.

[Sabcat]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/8571614/Ignore-this-rain-its-the-drought-that-we-need-to-think-about.html

 

Boris said it was good idea in his Telegraph column so it's probably nuts.

[Southern Star]

Well, his buses didn't work out too well...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/20/routemasters-running-on-diesel-battery-failure-_n_7831246.html

[Taslim]

Wasn't some kind of canal system plan mooted in the 50s to do just this or have I completely imagined it?

Possibly not imagination. I seem to remember something about the revival of a contour following sanal system to transfer water North-South. I don't know if it was intended to be navigable.

[RLWP]

Curiously enough, I have a friend who works for a water company, and yes - they looked into it

 

The problem is the fall on long sections of canal. It would work brilliantly if you built the banks up by about a metre to get enough fall to get a decent flow

 

They didn't pursue it

 

Richard

[Arthur Brown]

Many lakes used as reservoirs are closed to other uses, no boating! It would be self defeating to turn canals into a boat free water transfer system.

[Arthur Brown]

Consider the changes to inland navigation skills that would be necessary if there could be a 5 - 10 knot current and it could flow either way.

[Peter X]

In theory the Grand Contour Canal sounds like a good idea to me, but like all big projects (Wembley Stadium, the Heathrow runway question and HS2 spring to mind) someone in government would have to weigh up all the pros and cons dispassionately. What generally happens of course is that competing interests get involved, politicians take sides, awkward decisions get kicked into the long grass and the costs mount up.

 

I'm not clear whether the canal was intended to only flow one way with a gentle slope all the way down from the North Pennines to London, or to be built level with flow dictated by pouring water in where available at the time and out where needed at the time. In any case, dividing the rate of flow envisaged in the Wikipedia article (57 cubic metres per second) by the cross section (156 square metres) gives us a speed of only about 0.33 m/sec or 1.2 kph, about what you'd get on a quiet river and not enough to sweep anyone's narrow boat to its doom.

 

A waterway on that scale ought to be able to make a significant impact on freight, taking some types of cargo off the motorways and indirectly saving money on road building and maintenance. It probably could have access at various points to existing canals, and accommodate smaller leisure boats in among the big ships, but only really as a way to get from A to B as it would look pretty ugly at least to begin with. It wouldn't all have to be built at once, the government could start with whichever section looked like delivering the best return on investment.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

British Waterways started a joint venture with a couple of water companies back in 2002 to develop the idea of moving water around its network. It was one of the Evans/Hales early commercial failures and BW was left the sole shareholder when others jumped ship. Watergrid, as to company was called, was passed on to CaRT and was quietly wound up a couple of years ago having been dormant for many years. I seem to recall losses of about £1.5m.


*****Edited to clarify that BW's loss from this venture would have been about half of the above figure (i.e. roughly in proportion to its initial shareholding). It was written off in the 2004/5 accounting year.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Allan(nb Albert)

[David Mack]

In any case, dividing the rate of flow envisaged in the Wikipedia article (57 cubic metres per second) by the cross section (156 square metres) gives us a speed of only about 0.33 m/sec or 1.2 kph, about what you'd get on a quiet river and not enough to sweep anyone's narrow boat to its doom.

 

But much higher speed at restrictions in the channel such as bridge holes. Without bypasses it could be difficult to get a boat upstream through bridge holes.

[Phil Ambrose]

But much higher speed at restrictions in the channel such as bridge holes. Without bypasses it could be difficult to get a boat upstream through bridge holes.

Wrong, think about how we manage on rivers.

Phil

[John V]

Anyone interested in water movement by canal should have a look at the "new River" which has quietly and efficiently been supplying water to London for 300 odd years

[Neil Smith]

Just the thought of drinking water from some of the filthier canals is off putting.

 

Neil