I've set out the main part of my drainage, being old clay to new
inspection chamber to rest bend and soil pipe etc, with the gradient
at 1 in 40. Two other connections on the chamber are to connect to two
roddable bottle gullies (one under outside tap, other for rain water
runoff - combined sewer). If these gullies are connected to the
chamber mainly with straight pipe, the gradient will be a lot steeper
than 1 in 40. Is this OK, or do I need to use some kind of rest bend
from the gully so that the main run of pipe from gully to chamber is
about 1 in 40 ?
Of course, if the roddable feature is to be any use, then run needs to
basically be straight.
Thanks,
Simon.

"sm_jamieson" wrote in message
...
I've set out the main part of my drainage, being old clay to new
inspection chamber to rest bend and soil pipe etc, with the gradient
at 1 in 40. Two other connections on the chamber are to connect to two
roddable bottle gullies (one under outside tap, other for rain water
runoff - combined sewer).

Where do they still allow rain water to be connected into foul drains?
You could be in serious trouble, you would be around here.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
dennis@home wrote:

"sm_jamieson" wrote in message
...
I've set out the main part of my drainage, being old clay to new
inspection chamber to rest bend and soil pipe etc, with the gradient
at 1 in 40. Two other connections on the chamber are to connect to
two roddable bottle gullies (one under outside tap, other for rain
water runoff - combined sewer).

Where do they still allow rain water to be connected into foul drains?

Presumably everywhere where there is a combined sewer rather than separate
sewers for foul and surface water.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
dennis@home wrote:

"sm_jamieson" wrote in message
...
I've set out the main part of my drainage, being old clay to new
inspection chamber to rest bend and soil pipe etc, with the gradient
at 1 in 40. Two other connections on the chamber are to connect to
two roddable bottle gullies (one under outside tap, other for rain
water runoff - combined sewer).

Where do they still allow rain water to be connected into foul drains?

Presumably everywhere where there is a combined sewer rather than separate
sewers for foul and surface water.

Like I said where?
AFAIK its been made illegal.
They certainly should be as they overflow in storms and flood places with
raw sewage.

On 12 Apr, 23:14, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Roger Mills" wrote in message

...

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
dennis@home wrote:

"sm_jamieson" wrote in message
...
I've set out the main part of my drainage, being old clay to new
inspection chamber to rest bend and soil pipe etc, with the gradient
at 1 in 40. Two other connections on the chamber are to connect to
two roddable bottle gullies (one under outside tap, other for rain
water runoff - combined sewer).

Where do they still allow rain water to be connected into foul drains?

Presumably everywhere where there is a combined sewer rather than separate
sewers for foul and surface water.

Like I said where?
AFAIK its been made illegal.
They certainly should be as they overflow in storms and flood places with
raw sewage.

I said its a combined sewer. Coventry. Never had any problems in
storms.
Most of the 1930s houses are like that. AFAIK, most houses with
hoppers for bath
water have combined sewers. Soakaways would be no good - there's a
great thick layer of clay. There is no separate drain for us to use !
Connects straight to a public sewer running though the back gardens.
Got me thinking though - the road drains going into the same sewer
would
seem a bit odd, but I guess they must do.
Simon.

In article ,
"dennis@home" writes:

Where do they still allow rain water to be connected into foul drains?

Just about every older dense urban area, where there's no separate
rainwater drainage system and nowhere to put soakaways.

You can ask for permission anywhere. A friend of mine had no
problem getting permission out in a rural setting, which did
surpise me a bit.

You could be in serious trouble, you would be around here.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
dennis@home wrote:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...

Presumably everywhere where there is a combined sewer rather than
separate sewers for foul and surface water.

Like I said where?
AFAIK its been made illegal.
They certainly should be as they overflow in storms and flood places
with raw sewage.

It may be illegal for new build - but the idea of having separate sewers is
fairly recent (1960's?) and lots of places built prior to that have only a
single, combined, sewer.

Regulations like this are not usually retrospective. Do you honestly think
that the powers that be are going to make you build an additional sewer in
existing densely populated areas? The implications of doing this - *and* of
separating the two types of output from *each* property are horrendous.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

sm_jamieson wrote:
I've set out the main part of my drainage, being old clay to new
inspection chamber to rest bend and soil pipe etc, with the gradient
at 1 in 40. Two other connections on the chamber are to connect to two
roddable bottle gullies (one under outside tap, other for rain water
runoff - combined sewer). If these gullies are connected to the
chamber mainly with straight pipe, the gradient will be a lot steeper
than 1 in 40. Is this OK, or do I need to use some kind of rest bend
from the gully so that the main run of pipe from gully to chamber is
about 1 in 40 ?
snip

The '1 in 40' rule only applied to soil - rainwater can go at any angle,
but even soil drains are now no longer subject to the '1 in 40' rule.....the
idea was that ****, travelling at velocity, would splatter up the sides of
inspection chambers and the like, then when it set, it would build up into a
blockage, they now don't insist on this as slow moving turds cause blockages
themselves.

Phil L wrote:

The '1 in 40' rule only applied to soil - rainwater can go at any angle,
but even soil drains are now no longer subject to the '1 in 40' rule.....the
idea was that ****, travelling at velocity, would splatter up the sides of
inspection chambers and the like, then when it set, it would build up into a
blockage, they now don't insist on this as slow moving turds cause blockages
themselves.

I thought the justification was that if the angle is too steep,
the fluids drain too fast, leaving the solids stranded. A lower
angle was thought to keep the solids afloat and moving.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

On 14 Apr, 07:46, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Phil L wrote:
The '1 in 40' rule only applied to soil - rainwater can go at any angle,
but even soil drains are now no longer subject to the '1 in 40' rule.....the
idea was that ****, travelling at velocity, would splatter up the sides of
inspection chambers and the like, then when it set, it would build up into a
blockage, they now don't insist on this as slow moving turds cause blockages
themselves.

I thought the justification was that if the angle is too steep,
the fluids drain too fast, leaving the solids stranded. A lower
angle was thought to keep the solids afloat and moving.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

Thats what I thought too. Anyway, this does not apply to water only,
so I guess I can put in any angle I like. But I'll be prepared for the
BCO to shout at me !
Cheers,
Simon.

"sm_jamieson" wrote in message
...
Thats what I thought too. Anyway, this does not apply to water only,
so I guess I can put in any angle I like. But I'll be prepared for the
BCO to shout at me !

Coming in late but puzzled. You can only put in an angle accomodated by
the inspection chamber socket and or the gulley outlet. So why not create
the gradient to suit the inspection chamber socket by a short bend and pipe
extension at the gully. Or am I missing something?

Jim A

On 14 Apr, 10:10, "Jim Alexander" wrote:
"sm_jamieson" wrote in message

...

Thats what I thought too. Anyway, this does not apply to water only,
so I guess I can put in any angle I like. But I'll be prepared for the
BCO to shout at me !

Coming in late but puzzled. You can only put in an angle accomodated by
the inspection chamber socket and or the gulley outlet. So why not create
the gradient to suit the inspection chamber socket by a short bend and pipe
extension at the gully. Or am I missing something?

Jim A

The roddable gully has a side-exit socket at I guess 87.5 degrees.
The inspection chamber has 20 degree adjustable angle inlets (flopast
from screwfix), and you are allowed slight bends near roddable points
(inspection chamber and roddable gully). You are correct, there will
almost certainly be some slight bends to allow the main length of pipe
between them to be straight. All this is a given.

The point was, if I use any more than a slight bend from the roddable
gully, the roddable feature will be useless, since any tight bend just
after the roddable gully would prevent rods entering the main pipe. In
this case a nomal trap and separate rodding eye would be required.

The question was, (1) between slight bends at each end and the main
run straight at a steeper angle, OR, (2) tighter bends at each end and
the main run straight at a shallower angle.

If I create the gradient to suit the sockets, I will end up using
scenario (2) above.
Of course this is mitigated on the chamber end by the adjustable
inlets !

Hope that clears things up !
Simon.

"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...

I thought the justification was that if the angle is too steep,
the fluids drain too fast, leaving the solids stranded. A lower
angle was thought to keep the solids afloat and moving.

Having solids move away too fast can drag the water out of a toilet, and
other, water traps. Look at external stacks. The toilet goes outside, and
an immediate near horizontal elbow and then tees into the drain stack. The
toilet does no go directly into a tee on the stack. The elbow reduces flow.

"sm_jamieson" wrote in message
...
On 14 Apr, 10:10, "Jim Alexander" wrote:
"sm_jamieson" wrote in message

...

Thats what I thought too. Anyway, this does not apply to water only,
so I guess I can put in any angle I like. But I'll be prepared for the
BCO to shout at me !

Coming in late but puzzled. You can only put in an angle accomodated by
the inspection chamber socket and or the gulley outlet. So why not
create
the gradient to suit the inspection chamber socket by a short bend and
pipe
extension at the gully. Or am I missing something?

Jim A

The roddable gully has a side-exit socket at I guess 87.5 degrees.
The inspection chamber has 20 degree adjustable angle inlets (flopast
from screwfix), and you are allowed slight bends near roddable points
(inspection chamber and roddable gully). You are correct, there will
almost certainly be some slight bends to allow the main length of pipe
between them to be straight. All this is a given.

The point was, if I use any more than a slight bend from the roddable
gully, the roddable feature will be useless, since any tight bend just
after the roddable gully would prevent rods entering the main pipe. In
this case a nomal trap and separate rodding eye would be required.

The question was, (1) between slight bends at each end and the main
run straight at a steeper angle, OR, (2) tighter bends at each end and
the main run straight at a shallower angle.

If I create the gradient to suit the sockets, I will end up using
scenario (2) above.
Of course this is mitigated on the chamber end by the adjustable
inlets !

if you value rodabilty ahead of gradient have a look at the Marley compact
gully which has a 45deg outlet.

Jim A