"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I was just thinking that. Also much water these days seems to come with
added limescale, even in traditionally soft areas. I think its a cunning
plot to sell more vvalves pipes etc.
Brian

The water you get may not be local.
Apparently there is a scheme in hand to build a nationwide water grid, so
ever more likely in the future.

They are planning to use some canals/river systems as part of it.

"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 22/04/2015 11:45, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I was just thinking that. Also much water these days seems to come with
added limescale, even in traditionally soft areas. I think its a cunning
plot to sell more vvalves pipes etc.
Brian

The water you get may not be local.
Apparently there is a scheme in hand to build a nationwide water grid, so
ever more likely in the future.

This idea pops up from time to time, but there are several major obstacles
to it, not least the different characteristics of water from different
areas. Mixing acidic waters from the North with basic waters in the South
would upset the local ecologies. It would also need massive amounts of
energy to pump the water and there would need to be large water storage
areas, to provide balancing ponds and reservoirs. If there were space for
those in the areas that need more water, they would already be reservoirs.

They are planning to use some canals/river systems as part of it.

Were it ever to come about, pipelines would be the only practical
engineering solution. Too much water is lost to evaporation from surface
waterways and the canals were not designed for moving water, so many would
need to be rebuilt and strengthened.

All working canals have moving water.
How else can boats be raised?

Many canals are modified rivers, the water still flows.

Most of our large reservoirs are open to air.

In arid climates there are many canals purely for irrigation.
So, no problem in the UK.

The problem is lack of rain in (eg) the SE of the UK and too many people.

Something else you know nothing about then?

http://www.construction-manager.co.u...dea-ministers/
http://www.nce.co.uk/news/water/mini...637296.article

The hot water F&E tank was dripping into the bathroom today. for the
second time in as many months, and the third time in 3 years.

Of course, this requires 2 things to happen together: Both the
floatvalve has to fail to seal and the overflow (to the outside) has to
be blocked. The first time it happened, I didn't think about the
overflow, change the float valve and all was well for a couple of years.

When it happened a couple of months ago, I changed the valve again but I
also I shoved a flexible rod down the overflow and hit a very solid
obstruction, which eventually yielded. Unfortunately, being on the
frist floor, I couldn't find anything to identify what it was after it
had popped out and bounced off into the garden.

For it to happen again so soon smacks of something building a nest in
the pipe: I can't imagine that drip of (soft) water could lead to
enough of a build up to block the pipe in a couple of months, even
though some 'particulate mattter' (aka cr@p) must be getting stuck in
the float valves. Any idea what it could be?

(The question is purely out of interest, as the whole lot will be scrap
in a few months, when I fit a completely new system elsewhere.)

On 22/04/2015 21:12, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:05:15 +0100, GMM wrote:

The hot water F&E tank was dripping into the bathroom today. for the
second time in as many months, and the third time in 3 years.

Of course, this requires 2 things to happen together: Both the
floatvalve has to fail to seal and the overflow (to the outside) has to
be blocked. The first time it happened, I didn't think about the
overflow, change the float valve and all was well for a couple of years.

When it happened a couple of months ago, I changed the valve again but I
also I shoved a flexible rod down the overflow and hit a very solid
obstruction, which eventually yielded. Unfortunately, being on the
frist floor, I couldn't find anything to identify what it was after it
had popped out and bounced off into the garden.

For it to happen again so soon smacks of something building a nest in
the pipe: I can't imagine that drip of (soft) water could lead to
enough of a build up to block the pipe in a couple of months, even
though some 'particulate mattter' (aka cr@p) must be getting stuck in
the float valves. Any idea what it could be?

(The question is purely out of interest, as the whole lot will be scrap
in a few months, when I fit a completely new system elsewhere.)

Snails?


probably, they block the spout on my watering can if I forget to empty it.
It implies that the overflow was dripping for some time before the
snails went in.

I was just thinking that. Also much water these days seems to come with
added limescale, even in traditionally soft areas. I think its a cunning
plot to sell more vvalves pipes etc.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:05:15 +0100, GMM wrote:

The hot water F&E tank was dripping into the bathroom today. for the
second time in as many months, and the third time in 3 years.

Of course, this requires 2 things to happen together: Both the
floatvalve has to fail to seal and the overflow (to the outside) has to
be blocked. The first time it happened, I didn't think about the
overflow, change the float valve and all was well for a couple of years.

When it happened a couple of months ago, I changed the valve again but I
also I shoved a flexible rod down the overflow and hit a very solid
obstruction, which eventually yielded. Unfortunately, being on the
frist floor, I couldn't find anything to identify what it was after it
had popped out and bounced off into the garden.

For it to happen again so soon smacks of something building a nest in
the pipe: I can't imagine that drip of (soft) water could lead to
enough of a build up to block the pipe in a couple of months, even
though some 'particulate mattter' (aka cr@p) must be getting stuck in
the float valves. Any idea what it could be?

(The question is purely out of interest, as the whole lot will be scrap
in a few months, when I fit a completely new system elsewhere.)

Snails?

--

Chris

On 22/04/2015 21:12, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:05:15 +0100, GMM wrote:

The hot water F&E tank was dripping into the bathroom today. for the
second time in as many months, and the third time in 3 years.

Of course, this requires 2 things to happen together: Both the
floatvalve has to fail to seal and the overflow (to the outside) has to
be blocked. The first time it happened, I didn't think about the
overflow, change the float valve and all was well for a couple of years.

When it happened a couple of months ago, I changed the valve again but I
also I shoved a flexible rod down the overflow and hit a very solid
obstruction, which eventually yielded. Unfortunately, being on the
frist floor, I couldn't find anything to identify what it was after it
had popped out and bounced off into the garden.

For it to happen again so soon smacks of something building a nest in
the pipe: I can't imagine that drip of (soft) water could lead to
enough of a build up to block the pipe in a couple of months, even
though some 'particulate mattter' (aka cr@p) must be getting stuck in
the float valves. Any idea what it could be?

(The question is purely out of interest, as the whole lot will be scrap
in a few months, when I fit a completely new system elsewhere.)

Snails?

Certainly the feeling on the end of my flexy rod could have been a
snail. I'd sort of been thinking some flying thing might be building
nests but I'm sure snails have the appropriate mission impossible skills...

On 22/04/2015 22:07, Brian Gaff wrote:
I was just thinking that. Also much water these days seems to come with
added limescale, even in traditionally soft areas. I think its a cunning
plot to sell more vvalves pipes etc.
Brian


Ours is fairly soft, but that doesn't stop things failing. Maybe
selling poor quality fittings is a way to sell more fittings .....

GMM wrote:
The hot water F&E tank was dripping into the bathroom today. for the
second time in as many months, and the third time in 3 years.

Of course, this requires 2 things to happen together: Both the
floatvalve has to fail to seal and the overflow (to the outside) has to
be blocked. The first time it happened, I didn't think about the
overflow, change the float valve and all was well for a couple of years.

When it happened a couple of months ago, I changed the valve again but I
also I shoved a flexible rod down the overflow and hit a very solid
obstruction, which eventually yielded. Unfortunately, being on the frist
floor, I couldn't find anything to identify what it was after it had
popped out and bounced off into the garden.

For it to happen again so soon smacks of something building a nest in the
pipe: I can't imagine that drip of (soft) water could lead to enough of
a build up to block the pipe in a couple of months, even though some
'particulate mattter' (aka cr@p) must be getting stuck in the float
valves. Any idea what it could be?

(The question is purely out of interest, as the whole lot will be scrap
in a few months, when I fit a completely new system elsewhere.)

Mason bees regularly block our neighbours 15mm expansion overflow from
their combi. Don't think they'd block a 22 mm pipe though.

Tim

On 22/04/2015 11:45, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I was just thinking that. Also much water these days seems to come with
added limescale, even in traditionally soft areas. I think its a cunning
plot to sell more vvalves pipes etc.
Brian

The water you get may not be local.
Apparently there is a scheme in hand to build a nationwide water grid, so
ever more likely in the future.

This idea pops up from time to time, but there are several major
obstacles to it, not least the different characteristics of water from
different areas. Mixing acidic waters from the North with basic waters
in the South would upset the local ecologies. It would also need massive
amounts of energy to pump the water and there would need to be large
water storage areas, to provide balancing ponds and reservoirs. If there
were space for those in the areas that need more water, they would
already be reservoirs.

They are planning to use some canals/river systems as part of it.

Were it ever to come about, pipelines would be the only practical
engineering solution. Too much water is lost to evaporation from surface
waterways and the canals were not designed for moving water, so many
would need to be rebuilt and strengthened.


--
Colin Bignell

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:45:28 +0100, harryagain wrote:

The water you get may not be local.

Define "local". Ours (and the towns) used to come from an adit on the
fell side about 3/4 mile away. That's local, limestone so a bit hard
but not excessive kettle descale of pure white scale once/twice a
year unlike St Albans where it was kettle descale every month with
scale all manner of greens and blues.

A few years back they put in a new 6" main from Burnhope Reservior at
the top of Weardale. Nice soft water, no scale and very little
colour. Burnhope Reserviour is about 10 miles away. Local? I guess so
compared to Birmingham (73 miles from the Elan Valley) or Manchester
(96 miles from Thirlemere).

Apparently there is a scheme in hand to build a nationwide water grid,
so ever more likely in the future.

They are planning to use some canals/river systems as part of it.

Bristol draws most of its water from the River Severn via the open
water main called the Sharpness Canal. ISTR that there have been some
major water mains works in the area between Manchester and Liverpool
recently to improve distribution but without a national water body
with clout major interlinks between the various private water
companies ain't going to happen.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In message , at 09:22:42
on Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Nightjar remarked:
They are planning to use some canals/river systems as part of it.

Were it ever to come about, pipelines would be the only practical
engineering solution. Too much water is lost to evaporation from
surface waterways and the canals were not designed for moving water, so
many would need to be rebuilt and strengthened.

It came about many years ago: eg EOSTS which moves water from Norfolk to
Essex partly in riverbeds and centuries before the Llangollen Canal from
Horseshoe Falls to Trevor was built as a water feed.

--
Roland Perry

On 23/04/2015 16:01, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:22:42
on Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Nightjar remarked:
They are planning to use some canals/river systems as part of it.

Were it ever to come about, pipelines would be the only practical
engineering solution. Too much water is lost to evaporation from
surface waterways and the canals were not designed for moving water,
so many would need to be rebuilt and strengthened.

It came about many years ago: eg EOSTS which moves water from Norfolk to
Essex partly in riverbeds and centuries before the Llangollen Canal from
Horseshoe Falls to Trevor was built as a water feed.


There are relatively local schemes like the Thames Water Ring Main, but
no national water grid.

--
Colin Bignell

In message , at 17:28:19
on Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Nightjar remarked:
They are planning to use some canals/river systems as part of it.

Were it ever to come about, pipelines would be the only practical
engineering solution. Too much water is lost to evaporation from
surface waterways and the canals were not designed for moving water,
so many would need to be rebuilt and strengthened.

It came about many years ago: eg EOSTS which moves water from Norfolk to
Essex partly in riverbeds and centuries before the Llangollen Canal from
Horseshoe Falls to Trevor was built as a water feed.

There are relatively local schemes like the Thames Water Ring Main, but
no national water grid.

Did anyone claim there was?
--
Roland Perry

On 23/04/2015 19:12, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:28:19
on Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Nightjar remarked:
They are planning to use some canals/river systems as part of it.

Were it ever to come about, pipelines would be the only practical
engineering solution. Too much water is lost to evaporation from
surface waterways and the canals were not designed for moving water,
so many would need to be rebuilt and strengthened.

It came about many years ago: eg EOSTS which moves water from Norfolk to
Essex partly in riverbeds and centuries before the Llangollen Canal from
Horseshoe Falls to Trevor was built as a water feed.

There are relatively local schemes like the Thames Water Ring Main,
but no national water grid.

Did anyone claim there was?

Harry said it was proposed.

--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 22/04/2015 11:45, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I was just thinking that. Also much water these days seems to come with
added limescale, even in traditionally soft areas. I think its a cunning
plot to sell more vvalves pipes etc.
Brian

The water you get may not be local.
Apparently there is a scheme in hand to build a nationwide water grid, so
ever more likely in the future.

This idea pops up from time to time, but there are several major obstacles
to it, not least the different characteristics of water from different
areas. Mixing acidic waters from the North with basic waters in the South
would upset the local ecologies. It would also need massive amounts of
energy to pump the water and there would need to be large water storage
areas, to provide balancing ponds and reservoirs. If there were space for
those in the areas that need more water, they would already be reservoirs.

They are planning to use some canals/river systems as part of it.

Were it ever to come about, pipelines would be the only practical
engineering solution. Too much water is lost to evaporation from surface
waterways

That is just plain wrong. The entire MIA is done that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murrumb...rrigation_Area

and the canals were not designed for moving water, so many would need to
be rebuilt and strengthened.

Not true of the surface waterways.

On 22/04/2015 16:29, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 22/04/2015 11:45, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I was just thinking that. Also much water these days seems to come with
added limescale, even in traditionally soft areas. I think its a cunning
plot to sell more vvalves pipes etc.
Brian

The water you get may not be local.
Apparently there is a scheme in hand to build a nationwide water grid, so
ever more likely in the future.

This idea pops up from time to time, but there are several major obstacles
to it, not least the different characteristics of water from different
areas. Mixing acidic waters from the North with basic waters in the South
would upset the local ecologies. It would also need massive amounts of
energy to pump the water and there would need to be large water storage
areas, to provide balancing ponds and reservoirs. If there were space for
those in the areas that need more water, they would already be reservoirs.

They are planning to use some canals/river systems as part of it.

Were it ever to come about, pipelines would be the only practical
engineering solution. Too much water is lost to evaporation from surface
waterways and the canals were not designed for moving water, so many would
need to be rebuilt and strengthened.

All working canals have moving water.
How else can boats be raised?

To clarify: they were not designed to move water from place to place.

Many canals are modified rivers, the water still flows.

Hence, many would need to be rebuilt and strengthened, not all.

Most of our large reservoirs are open to air.

They are also located in deep, narrow valleys, where possible, to
minimise surface area and hence evaporation loss.

In arid climates there are many canals purely for irrigation.
So, no problem in the UK.

Irrigation canals are most commonly used around the actual fields, where
the evaporation increases local humidity.

The problem is lack of rain in (eg) the SE of the UK and too many people.

The problem is that we use about 50% more water per person than most of
the rest of Europe.

Something else you know nothing about then?

http://www.construction-manager.co.u...dea-ministers/
http://www.nce.co.uk/news/water/mini...637296.article

The fact that something has been proposed does not mean that there are
not significant problems to overcome to implement it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-9878680.html

In any case, the looked into the idea in 2006 and concluded that it
wasn't necessary.

http://www.bipsolutions.com/docstore/pdf/14342.pdf


--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 22/04/2015 16:29, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 22/04/2015 11:45, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I was just thinking that. Also much water these days seems to come
with
added limescale, even in traditionally soft areas. I think its a
cunning
plot to sell more vvalves pipes etc.
Brian

The water you get may not be local.
Apparently there is a scheme in hand to build a nationwide water grid,
so
ever more likely in the future.

This idea pops up from time to time, but there are several major
obstacles
to it, not least the different characteristics of water from different
areas. Mixing acidic waters from the North with basic waters in the
South
would upset the local ecologies. It would also need massive amounts of
energy to pump the water and there would need to be large water storage
areas, to provide balancing ponds and reservoirs. If there were space
for
those in the areas that need more water, they would already be
reservoirs.

They are planning to use some canals/river systems as part of it.

Were it ever to come about, pipelines would be the only practical
engineering solution. Too much water is lost to evaporation from surface
waterways and the canals were not designed for moving water, so many
would
need to be rebuilt and strengthened.

All working canals have moving water.
How else can boats be raised?

To clarify: they were not designed to move water from place to place.

Many canals are modified rivers, the water still flows.

Hence, many would need to be rebuilt and strengthened, not all.

Most of our large reservoirs are open to air.

They are also located in deep, narrow valleys, where possible, to minimise
surface area and hence evaporation loss.

In arid climates there are many canals purely for irrigation.
So, no problem in the UK.

Irrigation canals are most commonly used around the actual fields,

That is just plain wrong with the MIA.

where the evaporation increases local humidity.

Like hell it does. It’s the irrigated areas that do that,
not the canals, because the surface area of the canals
is a microscopic part of the area that is irrigated.

The problem is lack of rain in (eg) the SE of the UK and too many people.

The problem is that we use about 50% more water per person than most of
the rest of Europe.

That is just plain wrong
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=757

In fact you have got that backwards, there isn't any other
country in europe in that chart with a lower use of water
per person than Britain.

http://chartsbin.com/view/1455
There in fact only a couple of european countrys
with a lower rate of water use than Britain.

Something else you know nothing about then?

http://www.construction-manager.co.u...dea-ministers/
http://www.nce.co.uk/news/water/mini...637296.article

The fact that something has been proposed does not mean that there are not
significant problems to overcome to implement it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-9878680.html

In any case, the looked into the idea in 2006 and concluded that it wasn't
necessary.

http://www.bipsolutions.com/docstore/pdf/14342.pdf

"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 22/04/2015 16:29, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 22/04/2015 11:45, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I was just thinking that. Also much water these days seems to come
with
added limescale, even in traditionally soft areas. I think its a
cunning
plot to sell more vvalves pipes etc.
Brian

The water you get may not be local.
Apparently there is a scheme in hand to build a nationwide water grid,
so
ever more likely in the future.

This idea pops up from time to time, but there are several major
obstacles
to it, not least the different characteristics of water from different
areas. Mixing acidic waters from the North with basic waters in the
South
would upset the local ecologies. It would also need massive amounts of
energy to pump the water and there would need to be large water storage
areas, to provide balancing ponds and reservoirs. If there were space
for
those in the areas that need more water, they would already be
reservoirs.

They are planning to use some canals/river systems as part of it.

Were it ever to come about, pipelines would be the only practical
engineering solution. Too much water is lost to evaporation from surface
waterways and the canals were not designed for moving water, so many
would
need to be rebuilt and strengthened.

All working canals have moving water.
How else can boats be raised?

To clarify: they were not designed to move water from place to place.

Many canals are modified rivers, the water still flows.

Hence, many would need to be rebuilt and strengthened, not all.

Most of our large reservoirs are open to air.

They are also located in deep, narrow valleys, where possible, to minimise
surface area and hence evaporation loss.

In arid climates there are many canals purely for irrigation.
So, no problem in the UK.

Irrigation canals are most commonly used around the actual fields, where
the evaporation increases local humidity.

The problem is lack of rain in (eg) the SE of the UK and too many people.

The problem is that we use about 50% more water per person than most of
the rest of Europe.

Something else you know nothing about then?

http://www.construction-manager.co.u...dea-ministers/
http://www.nce.co.uk/news/water/mini...637296.article

The fact that something has been proposed does not mean that there are not
significant problems to overcome to implement it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-9878680.html

In any case, the looked into the idea in 2006 and concluded that it wasn't
necessary.

That was before socialist mass immigration.
The only problem is money.

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

"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 23/04/2015 19:12, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:28:19
on Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Nightjar remarked:
They are planning to use some canals/river systems as part of it.

Were it ever to come about, pipelines would be the only practical
engineering solution. Too much water is lost to evaporation from
surface waterways and the canals were not designed for moving water,
so many would need to be rebuilt and strengthened.

It came about many years ago: eg EOSTS which moves water from Norfolk
to
Essex partly in riverbeds and centuries before the Llangollen Canal
from
Horseshoe Falls to Trevor was built as a water feed.

There are relatively local schemes like the Thames Water Ring Main,
but no national water grid.

Did anyone claim there was?

Harry said it was proposed.

And so it is.

On 23/04/2015 23:41, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 22/04/2015 16:29, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 22/04/2015 11:45, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I was just thinking that. Also much water these days seems to come
with
added limescale, even in traditionally soft areas. I think its a
cunning
plot to sell more vvalves pipes etc.
Brian

The water you get may not be local.
Apparently there is a scheme in hand to build a nationwide water grid,
so
ever more likely in the future.

This idea pops up from time to time, but there are several major
obstacles
to it, not least the different characteristics of water from different
areas. Mixing acidic waters from the North with basic waters in the
South
would upset the local ecologies. It would also need massive amounts of
energy to pump the water and there would need to be large water storage
areas, to provide balancing ponds and reservoirs. If there were space
for
those in the areas that need more water, they would already be
reservoirs.

They are planning to use some canals/river systems as part of it.

Were it ever to come about, pipelines would be the only practical
engineering solution. Too much water is lost to evaporation from surface
waterways and the canals were not designed for moving water, so many
would
need to be rebuilt and strengthened.

All working canals have moving water.
How else can boats be raised?

To clarify: they were not designed to move water from place to place.

Many canals are modified rivers, the water still flows.

Hence, many would need to be rebuilt and strengthened, not all.

Most of our large reservoirs are open to air.

They are also located in deep, narrow valleys, where possible, to minimise
surface area and hence evaporation loss.

In arid climates there are many canals purely for irrigation.
So, no problem in the UK.

Irrigation canals are most commonly used around the actual fields, where
the evaporation increases local humidity.

The problem is lack of rain in (eg) the SE of the UK and too many people.

The problem is that we use about 50% more water per person than most of
the rest of Europe.

Something else you know nothing about then?

http://www.construction-manager.co.u...dea-ministers/
http://www.nce.co.uk/news/water/mini...637296.article

The fact that something has been proposed does not mean that there are not
significant problems to overcome to implement it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-9878680.html

In any case, the looked into the idea in 2006 and concluded that it wasn't
necessary.

That was before socialist mass immigration.

Did you actually read the report I provided a link to, or just engage
your prejudices to trot out a meaningless answer?

The only problem is money.

Only insofar as that spending huge amounts of money usually overcomes
most engineering problems. Whether that expense is justified is another
matter and the report concluded that it was not.

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

That is a last century answer, to take water from a virtually unlimited
supply source. Read the last paragraph carefully, as the same sort of
problems would occur if we moved water from the North to the South.


--
Colin Bignell

In message , at 21:35:17
on Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Nightjar remarked:

All working canals have moving water.
How else can boats be raised?

To clarify: they were not designed to move water from place to place.

Except some of them were.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 21:13:30
on Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Nightjar remarked:

They are planning to use some canals/river systems as part of it.

Were it ever to come about, pipelines would be the only practical
engineering solution. Too much water is lost to evaporation from
surface waterways and the canals were not designed for moving water,
so many would need to be rebuilt and strengthened.

It came about many years ago: eg EOSTS which moves water from Norfolk to
Essex partly in riverbeds and centuries before the Llangollen Canal from
Horseshoe Falls to Trevor was built as a water feed.

There are relatively local schemes like the Thames Water Ring Main,
but no national water grid.

Did anyone claim there was?

Harry said it was proposed.

He said schemes were proposed, and that *some* canals/rivers would be
used as part of it. I've named two already in place.
--
Roland Perry

On 24/04/2015 08:20, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:35:17
on Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Nightjar remarked:

All working canals have moving water.
How else can boats be raised?

To clarify: they were not designed to move water from place to place.

Except some of them were.

Which working canals, other than river improvements, were designed and
built to move water from place to place, as opposed to being later
adapted to do so?

--
Colin Bignell

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 22/04/2015 16:29, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 22/04/2015 11:45, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I was just thinking that. Also much water these days seems to come
with
added limescale, even in traditionally soft areas. I think its a
cunning
plot to sell more vvalves pipes etc.
Brian

The water you get may not be local.
Apparently there is a scheme in hand to build a nationwide water grid,
so
ever more likely in the future.

This idea pops up from time to time, but there are several major
obstacles
to it, not least the different characteristics of water from different
areas. Mixing acidic waters from the North with basic waters in the
South
would upset the local ecologies. It would also need massive amounts of
energy to pump the water and there would need to be large water storage
areas, to provide balancing ponds and reservoirs. If there were space
for
those in the areas that need more water, they would already be
reservoirs.

They are planning to use some canals/river systems as part of it.

Were it ever to come about, pipelines would be the only practical
engineering solution. Too much water is lost to evaporation from
surface
waterways and the canals were not designed for moving water, so many
would
need to be rebuilt and strengthened.

All working canals have moving water.
How else can boats be raised?

To clarify: they were not designed to move water from place to place.

Many canals are modified rivers, the water still flows.

Hence, many would need to be rebuilt and strengthened, not all.

Most of our large reservoirs are open to air.

They are also located in deep, narrow valleys, where possible, to
minimise surface area and hence evaporation loss.

In arid climates there are many canals purely for irrigation.
So, no problem in the UK.

Irrigation canals are most commonly used around the actual fields, where
the evaporation increases local humidity.

The problem is lack of rain in (eg) the SE of the UK and too many
people.

The problem is that we use about 50% more water per person than most of
the rest of Europe.

Something else you know nothing about then?

http://www.construction-manager.co.u...dea-ministers/
http://www.nce.co.uk/news/water/mini...637296.article

The fact that something has been proposed does not mean that there are
not significant problems to overcome to implement it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-9878680.html

In any case, the looked into the idea in 2006 and concluded that it
wasn't necessary.

That was before socialist mass immigration.

Nope, and the immigration of EUians has nothing to do with socialism.

The only problem is money.

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

In message , at 08:54:25
on Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Nightjar remarked:
All working canals have moving water.
How else can boats be raised?

To clarify: they were not designed to move water from place to place.

Except some of them were.

Which working canals, other than river improvements, were designed and
built to move water from place to place, as opposed to being later
adapted to do so?

I mentioned one earlier, the branch of the Llangollen Canal from
Horseshoe Falls to Trevor.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:13:30
on Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Nightjar remarked:

They are planning to use some canals/river systems as part of it.

Were it ever to come about, pipelines would be the only practical
engineering solution. Too much water is lost to evaporation from
surface waterways and the canals were not designed for moving water,
so many would need to be rebuilt and strengthened.

It came about many years ago: eg EOSTS which moves water from
Norfolk to
Essex partly in riverbeds and centuries before the Llangollen Canal
from
Horseshoe Falls to Trevor was built as a water feed.

There are relatively local schemes like the Thames Water Ring Main,
but no national water grid.

Did anyone claim there was?

Harry said it was proposed.

He said schemes were proposed, and that *some* canals/rivers would be
used as part of it. I've named two already in place.

A major problem to using canals is that you will get flow, which will
require boats with more power in order to actually move. Also AAUI
canals are frequently lined with clay, this will flow with the water,
destroying the water seal.

On 24/04/2015 09:37, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:54:25
on Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Nightjar remarked:
All working canals have moving water.
How else can boats be raised?

To clarify: they were not designed to move water from place to place.

Except some of them were.

Which working canals, other than river improvements, were designed and
built to move water from place to place, as opposed to being later
adapted to do so?

I mentioned one earlier, the branch of the Llangollen Canal from
Horseshoe Falls to Trevor.

That wasn't built as a working canal, but as a navigable feeder to the
Ellesmere Canal.

--
Colin Bignell

In message , at 10:29:40
on Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Nightjar remarked:
Which working canals, other than river improvements, were designed and
built to move water from place to place, as opposed to being later
adapted to do so?

I mentioned one earlier, the branch of the Llangollen Canal from
Horseshoe Falls to Trevor.

That wasn't built as a working canal, but as a navigable feeder to the
Ellesmere Canal.

Same thing. If it wasn't navigable you'd have more of a point.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
10:27:31 on Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Capitol remarked:
He said schemes were proposed, and that *some* canals/rivers would be
used as part of it. I've named two already in place.

A major problem to using canals is that you will get flow, which
will require boats with more power in order to actually move.

Same as using boats on navigable rivers. If the flow is more than about
15mph it can get a bit hairly, but that's with a regular boat.

Also AAUI canals are frequently lined with clay, this will flow with
the water, destroying the water seal.

Canals have been flowing for 200 years without that being a problem.
--
Roland Perry

On 24/04/2015 11:44, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:29:40
on Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Nightjar remarked:
Which working canals, other than river improvements, were designed and
built to move water from place to place, as opposed to being later
adapted to do so?

I mentioned one earlier, the branch of the Llangollen Canal from
Horseshoe Falls to Trevor.

That wasn't built as a working canal, but as a navigable feeder to the
Ellesmere Canal.

Same thing. If it wasn't navigable you'd have more of a point.

Not really. Feeders only exist because of the main canal. Some were made
navigable, but many were not. In any case, it doesn't change my main
point that a lot of canals would need to be rebuilt if they were to be
used as part of a water transport system.

--
Colin Bignell

In message , at 12:38:21
on Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Nightjar remarked:
Which working canals, other than river improvements, were designed and
built to move water from place to place, as opposed to being later
adapted to do so?

I mentioned one earlier, the branch of the Llangollen Canal from
Horseshoe Falls to Trevor.

That wasn't built as a working canal, but as a navigable feeder to the
Ellesmere Canal.

Same thing. If it wasn't navigable you'd have more of a point.

Not really. Feeders only exist because of the main canal.

But they still perform the essential task of moving water from one place
to another.

Some were made navigable, but many were not.

For clarity, can you give an example of a feeder canal that isn't
navigable?

In any case, it doesn't change my main point that a lot of canals would
need to be rebuilt if they were to be used as part of a water transport
system.

The main reason for extra civil engineering is because most canals go
both up and down hill. That situation is dealt with by my other example,
the Denver-Essex water flow. While some is piped, there's also a
significant distance in existing waterways.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 14:52:17 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

For clarity, can you give an example of a feeder canal that isn't
navigable?

Earlswood reservoir to the Stratford-upon-Avon canal. All 500 m of
it. B-)

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 24/04/2015 14:52, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:38:21
on Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Nightjar remarked:
Which working canals, other than river improvements, were designed
and
built to move water from place to place, as opposed to being later
adapted to do so?

I mentioned one earlier, the branch of the Llangollen Canal from
Horseshoe Falls to Trevor.

That wasn't built as a working canal, but as a navigable feeder to the
Ellesmere Canal.

Same thing. If it wasn't navigable you'd have more of a point.

Not really. Feeders only exist because of the main canal.

But they still perform the essential task of moving water from one place
to another.

They were also designed to carry moving water, which many main canals
were not.

Some were made navigable, but many were not.

For clarity, can you give an example of a feeder canal that isn't
navigable?

No, because they are only feeder canals if they are both feeders and
navigable. However, there are plenty of non-navigable feeders:

http://www.londoncanals.uk/ruislip/ruislp04.html
http://www.londoncanals.uk/ruislip/ruislp01.html


In any case, it doesn't change my main point that a lot of canals
would need to be rebuilt if they were to be used as part of a water
transport system.

The main reason for extra civil engineering is because most canals go
both up and down hill.

Partly, but also because the banks and linings of canals could be
damaged by a moving current or, indeed, are damaged by excessive wash
from powered boats.

That situation is dealt with by my other example,
the Denver-Essex water flow. While some is piped, there's also a
significant distance in existing waterways.

Waterways in that area are navigations - improvements to existing rivers
- or part of land drainage schemes and thus quite different to canals in
design and purpose.

--
Colin Bignell

On 24/04/2015 17:39, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 14:52:17 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

For clarity, can you give an example of a feeder canal that isn't
navigable?

Earlswood reservoir to the Stratford-upon-Avon canal. All 500 m of
it. B-)


Which is considerably longer than the shortest navigable canal in
England. The Wardle Canal, which joins the Trent and Mersey to the
Shropshire Union, is 47m long and it includes a lock. :-)

--
Colin Bignell

On 22/04/2015 11:45, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I was just thinking that. Also much water these days seems to come with
added limescale, even in traditionally soft areas. I think its a cunning
plot to sell more vvalves pipes etc.
Brian

The water you get may not be local.
Apparently there is a scheme in hand to build a nationwide water grid, so
ever more likely in the future.

They are planning to use some canals/river systems as part of it.


as far as i know there is already a system of using rivers to pump into
and abstract lower down flow.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

In message , at 18:13:10
on Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Nightjar remarked:
That situation is dealt with by my other example,
the Denver-Essex water flow. While some is piped, there's also a
significant distance in existing waterways.

Waterways in that area are navigations - improvements to existing
rivers - or part of land drainage schemes and thus quite different to
canals in design and purpose.

So you agree that rivers can be used to transport water around the
country (by pumping it to the source, and then letting it flow
downhill).
--
Roland Perry

"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 23/04/2015 23:41, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 22/04/2015 16:29, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 22/04/2015 11:45, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I was just thinking that. Also much water these days seems to come
with
added limescale, even in traditionally soft areas. I think its a
cunning
plot to sell more vvalves pipes etc.
Brian

The water you get may not be local.
Apparently there is a scheme in hand to build a nationwide water
grid,
so
ever more likely in the future.

This idea pops up from time to time, but there are several major
obstacles
to it, not least the different characteristics of water from different
areas. Mixing acidic waters from the North with basic waters in the
South
would upset the local ecologies. It would also need massive amounts of
energy to pump the water and there would need to be large water
storage
areas, to provide balancing ponds and reservoirs. If there were space
for
those in the areas that need more water, they would already be
reservoirs.

They are planning to use some canals/river systems as part of it.

Were it ever to come about, pipelines would be the only practical
engineering solution. Too much water is lost to evaporation from
surface
waterways and the canals were not designed for moving water, so many
would
need to be rebuilt and strengthened.

All working canals have moving water.
How else can boats be raised?

To clarify: they were not designed to move water from place to place.

Many canals are modified rivers, the water still flows.

Hence, many would need to be rebuilt and strengthened, not all.

Most of our large reservoirs are open to air.

They are also located in deep, narrow valleys, where possible, to
minimise
surface area and hence evaporation loss.

In arid climates there are many canals purely for irrigation.
So, no problem in the UK.

Irrigation canals are most commonly used around the actual fields, where
the evaporation increases local humidity.

The problem is lack of rain in (eg) the SE of the UK and too many
people.

The problem is that we use about 50% more water per person than most of
the rest of Europe.

Something else you know nothing about then?

http://www.construction-manager.co.u...dea-ministers/
http://www.nce.co.uk/news/water/mini...637296.article

The fact that something has been proposed does not mean that there are
not
significant problems to overcome to implement it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-9878680.html

In any case, the looked into the idea in 2006 and concluded that it
wasn't
necessary.

That was before socialist mass immigration.

Did you actually read the report I provided a link to, or just engage your
prejudices to trot out a meaningless answer?

The only problem is money.

Only insofar as that spending huge amounts of money usually overcomes most
engineering problems. Whether that expense is justified is another matter
and the report concluded that it was not.

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

That is a last century answer, to take water from a virtually unlimited
supply source. Read the last paragraph carefully, as the same sort of
problems would occur if we moved water from the North to the South.

That's a much longer canal in a hot arid climate.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 14:52:17 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

For clarity, can you give an example of a feeder canal that isn't
navigable?

Earlswood reservoir to the Stratford-upon-Avon canal. All 500 m of
it. B-)

Virtually all canals have reservoirs that are connected to the canal by
leats.
They are used for mills too.
They are very common.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leat

"critcher" wrote in message
...
On 22/04/2015 11:45, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I was just thinking that. Also much water these days seems to come with
added limescale, even in traditionally soft areas. I think its a cunning
plot to sell more vvalves pipes etc.
Brian

The water you get may not be local.
Apparently there is a scheme in hand to build a nationwide water grid, so
ever more likely in the future.

They are planning to use some canals/river systems as part of it.


as far as i know there is already a system of using rivers to pump into
and abstract lower down flow.

True.
The schemes propose much more extensive use of this sort of thing.
It reduces the need/cost of pipes and pumping

"GMM" wrote in message
...
On 22/04/2015 22:07, Brian Gaff wrote:
I was just thinking that. Also much water these days seems to come with
added limescale, even in traditionally soft areas. I think its a cunning
plot to sell more vvalves pipes etc.
Brian


Ours is fairly soft, but that doesn't stop things failing. Maybe selling
poor quality fittings is a way to sell more fittings .....

Soft water is chemically aggressive and will corrode some metals.