Could the Canal System be used to move water

[furnessvale]

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

United Utilities have plans for a pipeline alongside HS2, which would cover half of a north south feeder costing £2.6 billions.

 

Dredging the canals, a few extra back pumps (possibly of greater capacity) and 24 hour use of them, rather than "as and when" at present, would move a similar amount of water at a fraction of the cost.

 

Yes there would be a flow, probably similar to the Welsh Canal, but on generally broader and deeper waters this wouldn't be a problem, and water shortage for boaters, at least on those canals, would be a thing of the past, provided CRT made a condition that lock use downhill "against the flow" was still permitted.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[RLWP]

George, the quantity of water they wanted to move to make the job worthwhile was much greater. And the sticking point was the changes needed to the canal profile. Raising the banks by a metre or lowering the bed by the same amount are absolutely massive projects

 

This will be the project Allan referred to from 2002

 

Richard

[cuthound]

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

Yes, it was called the Grand Conour Canal, and ran along the 300 foot contour, with branches locking down to various towns. In the 43 years that I have been interested in canals the idea has been regularly trotted out but nothing has ever come of it.

 

Details here:

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Contour_Canal

[Bunny]

Wasn't 1976 a drought year. Seem to remember stand pipes and tankers of water having to be bought in to some areas . Sharing a bath and bricks in the cisterns. Good old times . The sharing the bath bit , not the drought . Bunny

[furnessvale]

George, the quantity of water they wanted to move to make the job worthwhile was much greater. And the sticking point was the changes needed to the canal profile. Raising the banks by a metre or lowering the bed by the same amount are absolutely massive projects

 

This will be the project Allan referred to from 2002

 

Richard

I've done a few rough calculations but I believe I am in the correct field.

 

Assuming UU wanted to install a single 1.5m dia pipe with a flow rate of 7.5m per sec.

 

To send the same flow down a canal the tight spot is obviously a bridge hole. Assuming 3m x 2m through the bridge hole (better maintained than at present) gives a flow rate around 0.66m/s which equates to about 1.5mph, similar to the Welsh Canal.

 

There are obviously many assumptions. Did UU propose multiple pipes? Maybe my calcs are up the creek (wouldn't be the first time).

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Tacet]

I've done a few rough calculations but I believe I am in the correct field.

 

Assuming UU wanted to install a single 1.5m dia pipe with a flow rate of 7.5m per sec.

 

To send the same flow down a canal the tight spot is obviously a bridge hole. Assuming 3m x 2m through the bridge hole (better maintained than at present) gives a flow rate around 0.66m/s which equates to about 1.5mph, similar to the Welsh Canal.

 

There are obviously many assumptions. Did UU propose multiple pipes? Maybe my calcs are up the creek (wouldn't be the first time).

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

 

I've done a few rough calculations too. According to Wiki (I know!) 62m litres of water pass along the Welsh Canal per day. The pipeline you mention, at the rate you say, would have a rate of over 1bn litres per day - so the flow rate on that canal, for example, would be about 20 times greater.

 

7.5 m/sec and 1bn litres both sound high to me - so it might be as well to employ a professional before actioning.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Tacet

[furnessvale]

 

 

I've done a few rough calculations too. According to Wiki (I know!) 62m litres of water pass along the Welsh Canal per day. The pipeline you mention, at the rate you say, would have a rate of over 1bn litres per day - so the flow rate on that canal, for example, would be about 20 times greater.

 

7.5 m/sec and 1bn litres both sound high to me - so it might be as well to employ a professional before actioning.

The 7.5 I simply took from a code of practice for a water authority in the USA. This was said to be the maximum allowable for them. I should imagine practice in the UK would be similar.

 

You are correct, 1bn sounds a lot so if that is reduced the 20x will also reduce. If I can muster the energy I will try and work things from the other direction, i.e. How much do they want down south and work backwards to see what flow that would induce on the canal.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[furnessvale]

A quick Google shows the 15m population served by Thames Water consume 2.6bn litres per day.

 

Resupply by canal would not need to be on a complete daily replacement basis. Perhaps one fiftieth replacement would suffice if done continuously.

 

At that rate it is lower than the Welsh Canal.

 

All this assumes that the north has the water to spare of course!

 

George

[Jerra]

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.

It need not be so. Water is drawn from Ullswater which had rowing boats, the Lake "Steamers" (they aren't but are always called steamers) hire motor boats, private boats etc. This is added to the supply to Manchester.

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

 

Neil

Is it any more off putting than knowing the water in some places has been through at least half a dozen people before it is drunk (again)?

[furnessvale]

It need not be so. Water is drawn from Ullswater which had rowing boats, the Lake "Steamers" (they aren't but are always called steamers) hire motor boats, private boats etc. This is added to the supply to Manchester.

Is it any more off putting than knowing the water in some places has been through at least half a dozen people before it is drunk (again)?

Yes, water is treated at the end of its trunk haul not at the beginning. At my father's pumping station we used to dip the sump with a bucket to fill the kettle but the water was always boiled before use.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Peter X]

I'm pretty sure the tap water in much of South London including my area is extracted from the Thames at Kingston, and I've been drinking it almost all my life without apparently doing myself a mischief. Perhaps it helps that I often boil it first to make tea. On average it's probably been through a tiny fraction of a person on its way down the Thames as most water will flow on down the river instead of being diverted through the good people of Oxford, Reading, Maidenhead etc. But I'm optimistic that the combination of their sewage works and the treatment water is given at Kingston before it goes into the mains is enough to make it drinkable. In Thames Water I trust!

 

There are of course a lot of boats using the Thames, but I'd expect its water like most rivers to be cleaner than a canal because there's more flow to dilute everything.

 

The south, especially London, is indeed much more prone to drought than the north, mainly I think because average annual rainfall in London is about a third of what much of the north west gets. I remember for example that in the hot summer of 1989 we had water restrictions for weeks in Beckenham. The Grand Contour Canal would surely have a significant impact for water supply, and sometimes play a supporting role in dispersing excess rainwater to prevent it reaching the wrong rivers, but whether this plus its other benefits outweigh the costs is a matter for a big impartial study followed by a politician with the guts to see it through.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

A national water grid was first proposed in Victorian times. BW's Watergrid joint venture failed because water companies no longer saw a need for it.

 

That position exists to this day.

 

My own view is that politics are at play here. Government will not pay for a national water grid and the water companies don't want to.

 

As such they play down the idea via various supposedly independent bodies.

 

I would suggest anyone with an interest Google's 'national water grid' to find articles.

[sandgrown]

Thanks for all the comments, its all very interesting the Llangollen shows it could be done, though it does seem like a greater need would be required before any action was taken, as when the Thirlmere Aquaduct was built to supply Manchester moving water 90 miles.

[John V]

SNIP<, though it does seem like a greater need would be required before any action was taken,>SNIP.

 

Isn't this always the way? Things have to get to disaster level, before anyone will act

 

 

edit to put a gap between words

Edited January 27, 2016 by John V

[Pluto]

Given the housing shortage, wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to build houses and provide jobs in the north?

[Peter X]

It's a big off-topic subject, but yes it would be desirable to move some jobs from the south (especially London) to the north (especially those places where the closure of a dominant local industry has left a particular shortage). It's easier said than done, and a succession of governments have tried without much success; usually the best they can do is to make sure the infrastructure such as transport exists, the "build it and they will come" philosophy. The Wilson government in the 1960s in particular did move a lot of civil service jobs out of London that didn't need to be there, but there's only so much scope for that sort of thing. I suspect that often a company that would be more profitable moving all or part of its operation out of London doesn't because of inertia; the managers responsible for the decision, perhaps under pressure from their families, don't want to move house.

 

Meanwhile there are millions of thirsty Londoners and although Thames Water are doing their best, there will be droughts in the future during which the Grand Contour Canal will get talked about again.

[Pluto]

Hardly off-topic as the economic case for using canals for water transport is not good, given that the whole section of the system used would need to be dredged, to remove contaminants if nothing else. Going off-topic would be to suggest that developing business in the north would be cheaper than HS2, as would moving the seat of government into modern premises in the north/midlands instead of revamping the Houses of Parliament. Strange that politicians want modern businesses, yet don't want a modern Parliament.

[costalot]

It's my understanding that the original canals were designed and engineered to retain water. Attempting to now do the reverse seems a huge engineering task.

[furnessvale]

It's my understanding that the original canals were designed and engineered to retain water. Attempting to now do the reverse seems a huge engineering task.

?? No change. The canals would still retain water but the bywashes would run continuously as the Shroppie and Welsh do most of the time.

 

George ex nb Alton retired