CanalWays

Great idea, many seem to have forgotten that low-tech simple solutions are often the best.

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." Einstein

Some good ideas knocking about. I support them in general while recognising the hugely significant problems involved in just implementing one aspect, the biggest opposition being the entrenched interests. Perhaps it needs to be floated in front of someone looking to get the green vote at the next election?
Might be an issue extending the canal system given our current levels of employment - lots more immigrant labour needed all over the country! Imagine the response given it is a current hot topic.
The water distribution aspect seems to have the most legs, I think.
I agree with Roger Greenwood on the transport issue - lots of industries seem to have got into the "just in time" ordering system, but it should still be feasible.
The energy generation might / might not be feasible - someone academic needs to do a study and complete the arithmetic!

While we're talking about power generation, what about microgeneration systems?
Old water mills or windmills could be put back into operation with turbines or small generators (no-one's ever complained about those pretty old-style windmills in Norfolk, have they?). Combined heat and power (CHP)boilers instead of simple gas boilers? You could cover the roofs of houses, business units and (especially) data centres with Solar Photovoltaics (PV) to provide daytime power, with mini wind turbines on them as well. By distributing the generation around the country in this way, you reduce the local impact of wind farms, nuclear, etc. and also the power distribution costs. Sure, you'd still need some power stations and a national grid to sync' it all together, but it'd help, wouldn't it?
Would probably need a bit of subsidy to get it started, but we could save the planet if we all did a bit!!

I think your idea has merit for a number of reasons, but not necessarily for the solution proposed. As with all ‘obvious’ ideas there is a large amount of subtle thinking that is needed to make it work and money, political will, economic climate…blah, blah, blah.

 “it's obvious that someone could do some joined-up thinking here”
  - By Guy Kewney, Newswireless.net

This is what I believe this forum is for, to allow that group-thinking to identify the various issues; the point being I hope to mitigate them. Saying that I’m about to put forward and issue that I think beyond this solution to solve, that being “capitalism”. Note: I am not a “capitalism” basher, it’s given me a good education, medical services, infra-structure and living, but in no way do I think “it” did it for my benefit.

Capitalism is based on the profit motive and a component of profit is based on the time of delivery & timeliness. Many businesses are now structured for ‘just-in-time’, where much of the ‘stock-management’ based on reducing the time between order & fulfilment, i.e. profitability (and stock-market valuation) is dependent on holding the least inventory possible. So with competing suppliers for any material/service then the market defines the unit price based on the timeliness to fulfil a contract, i.e. 1 tonne of coal delivered in 10 days has a greater profit than 1 tonne delivered in 20 days. So a major re-alignment of stock-market assessment for primary material businesses would be needed. I’m assuming finished good businesses would still be using road-haulage, as these are far more sensitive to stock-level management.

Just as I’ve done the web surfing and so others may as well benefit. I found a report http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5330&sequence=0, which defines the energy requirement for an inland barge is 990 BTU’s per tonne-mile with the "best" being trains at between 900 BTU & 2000 BTU’s per tonne-mile; dependent on the unit trains design. This of course can be mitigated through solar & wind energy production, but with a noted decrease in energy density and hence conversion to motive power.

Saying this, the solution would seem to fill two of its target criteria; energy storage and water distribution. As to material distribution this I think would be best left to “local” benefit for bulk materials in which there was no profit component based on time, such as waste disposal. An idea may be if these emerging multi-service companies i.e. water & energy companies, could get their consolidated act together and seriously analyse the business case.

But the most important aspect identified in the article I believe is that major projects have a massive energy demand and if this or any re-structuring project has to be done it needs to be done during “this” energy rich period.

So more thinking which attempts to create a virtuous circle of the demand/energy cycle with creating in-built benefits, is needed! Then if we could add a lot of political will and a smidgen of enlightened-self interest we may actual stop this “barge going over the waterfall” (sorry for the parody).

Now where’s the spade! ;-)

You're not going to get this with BW as they are at the moment. Here's an example - moving water from the rainy north to the parched south. They've been talking about this since the late 90's, and even put money into setting up a "Water Grid" control centre. Hear anything about it? Notice any relaxing of hosepipe bans? No? Not surprised. A good subject to have meetings about though. Even better if you're a project manager - job for life!
If anyone thinks that BW is a bit short of cash, think again. They must have been doing backflips when London got the 2012 games, as they own much of the land to be developed for the stadia and facilities. They've got a few bits of Docklands round Canary Wharf too.
BW = Bureaucrats Waterways

"The canals of Great Britain. Falling into disuse." You don't need to read any more than this to know that the article title states it for what it is: Canal dreaming.

FROM: http://www.mike-stevens.co.uk/maps/1950/index1950.htm

1942 saw the most ambitious waterway proposal ever in the UK. J F Pownall's proposed Grand Contour Canal was to be a lock-free ship canal on the 310ft (95 m) contour connecting most parts of England, and linked to the main river systems by boat lifts. The surface width of the canal was to be 100ft (30.8 m) and its depth 17ft (5.2 m). In addition to shipping, it was proposed to use it for water transfer. Sadly the proposal came to nothing.

At the end of WW2 the canals were handed back to their owners once again, and this time there was a real fear that the growth of road competition, in addition to the existing railway competition, could bring the final death-knell of the system. This prompted the formation in 1946 of the Inland Waterways Association to campaign for the retention and use of the waterways.

The 1947 Transport Act nationalised most of the waterways. This was almost certainly not a major target of the Attlee Government, but incidental to their nationalisation of the railways, who owned much of the waterways system. GUCCC, the largest carrying fleet, became part of the nationalised industry, and Fellows Morton & Clayton, the second largest, sold out to them in the following year after the first loss-making year in its history.

The last years of the decade saw the first signs of a fight-back against decline, with the successful campaign, initiated by John Gould, to prevent the nationalised industry from abandoning the semi-derelict Kennet & Avon Canal.

At some future date I hope to extend this series of maps to bring the history up to date and show the successes of the restoration movement.

- Great idea, we all need to think outside the box like this and harness the low-tech skills and knowledge from the industrial past. Solutions like this are all around us, if we care to look for them and care less about Oil prices, Stocks and shares etc. What use are profits if you live in a waste-land.

I like the idea of bringing the canals back into commercial use. Were you watching a recent Fred Dibner programme on the canals by any chance Guy? I watched the programme and thought at the time that we could surely still make use of the canals in modern times.

People used to transport freight by train as well of course, which, while perhaps not being as environmentally friendly must surely have better efficiency than road haulage? Apparently it is no longer cost effective to do so now though, to the extent that even Royal Mail gave up a while ago. The problem, it would seem, is that road haulage is just too cheap by comparison to other methods, and in a country with very high fuel prices too.

On the power front, it is something that I have given thought to as well. I believe we are going to have to use more nuclear energy in future, if we want to reduce pollution from our declining supply of fosil fuels and continue our energy hungry lifestyle.

I was wondering whether there are more opportunities to build hydroelectric power stations like Dinorwig in Wales or Ben Cruachan in Scotland that would have a minimum impact on the scenery of surrounding land?

Even if the power capacity of these types of station are small compared to other methods of generating electricity, they would seem to be very useful for generating extra capacity when anticipated demand suddenly rockets, such as people making a cup of tea during the ad breaks in Coronation Street!

For wind power, I wondered if we could perhaps run platforms of wind turbines in the North Sea? It would mean that they are out of sight and not an eye sore on scenic land (although I think they have a beauty of their own), but I'm not sure how practical it really is?

There was far more there about power generation than canal regeneration, but it's a very interesting discussion.

I think water distribution is feasible. Transport is feasible but of limted use - it will take 50 years to unlearn not having things delivered next day again, and the amount of bulk items that go by road which can already be delayed will be less than you think. Power generation is a separate issue, and would need a greater head/flow of water than the norms of a canal system (MUCH more if you think of replacing all our power needs). The two could run in tandem though, to ensure enough water to the busiest part of the canal system.
All we need now is the will to change the law to allow a windmill to be built anywhere, with objections on the grounds of "I don't like it" to be ignored. That would be a start, and could be done this year.

This is an excellent idea.

I agree with Neil Barnes, the only way to get this going is to prove the concept with what we have in place now. If that works and provides real benefits to business then everybody will want in on it.

The last thing you want to do is the usual Government style 'big bang' approach, those sorts of projects tend to fall behind and even get cancelled due to complexity!

Keep it simple, prove the theory, show the benefits and in 100 years time you could be remembered as the creator of the next stage in industrialisation! (using 300 year old technology (-: )

As a narrowboater this is something that strikes a chord with many of us..

British waterways is facing financial diffculty as DEFRA is cutting funding as they need to pay for the c*ck up with the farmers payments systems, currently the pleasure boaters are expected to foot significant parts of this tab - industrialisation of the canals is a viable alternative, and one that will not price the users off the water (and lead to the collapse of the system).

Canals are being used to carry the excavations from the 2012 olympics out of the city - new wharves are being built to enable this.

Chester is supplied with water from the welsh mountains via the langollen canal. there is a noticable current, but as this pays for the upkeep of the canal it's a good thing.

Most towns in the uk are on or below the 320ft contour if a canal could be cut at this level water would flow around the country. The four main rivers in the UK are linked by navgable canals Severn, Trent, Thames & Mersey. Thomas Telford built canals that avoided many contour changes via cuttings and embankments (look at the shropshire union) he even flattened some of the original route built by James Brindley to speed up travel by eliminating contour changes (Locks).

The infrastructure issue is the key here - a standard canal barge will carry 20 tons, with a butty in tow it will take 40 - problem is a health and saftey one - how many people would it take to crew one of these given the European Working time directives etc? I'd suggest we'd need a crew of 3 or 4 people and to make that cost-effective compared to a truck barges will need to be upwards of 150tons. That's one hell of a canal that will need to be built - and of course they will burn heavy oil - one of the most polluting fuels in the world.

Some of this could be achieved - using the canals as a water trunk network, using wind to pump water - hey they used to do this - windmills anyone?

Lets see where this goes... Simon.

I live in Dubai, and here the main motorway from the hi-tech industrial area to the city centre 20km way is one long car park for much of the day, despite being 5 lanes wide in places.

Of course, they're building a rapid transit rail system, but the first line won't open for 3 years, if it is on schedule (and like most projects of this type, it probably won't be).

Since development is concentrated along the coastal strip, I'd suggested to a friend that the 2 hr (yes TWO HOUR) drive from the business park area to the city would be only a pleasurable 40 minute ferry ride. Build a couple of terminals along the coast, a couple on the creek (the 'river' inlet into the city) and even if everyone switched to water transport, you're not going to run out of ocean. You could even carry cars.

Water transport could save energy and would be quicker than roads in many cases; it truly is an under-used resource and needs a fraction of the investment that a subway/rail system requires.

Slightly off topic.
If the government subsidised rail frieght by as much as it subsidises road freight or passenger rail, that would take a lot of lorries off the roads.

Well it sure beats every other idea put forwards, and it's much better to have large canal boats drife near silently past than to have lorry after lorry thunder past your frount door.

Edited by author 09-11-2006 06:07 AM
I seem to remember there was one of those "and finally" items on the Midlands news saying a company was using the canals for low priority, bulk-goods transport again, however I'm fairly sure it was more of a publicity stunt than anything else.

IMHO, the idea is sound but as you say all of the leisure interests have got a stranglehold on the existing canal network. The concept of using low energy input to shift large, bulky, non-time-critical goods should be a no-brainer...

Perhaps a letter to various MPs?

Great article!

--Harry

Interesting idea. Unfortunately those who own premium canalside property are likely to have more money and influence than average. Supplementing locks with hydraulic boat lifts would greatly multiply capacity of the existing system without needing much widening or so much water fed into the top reaches. With more passing points and deepening, widening could be minimised, resulting in a doubling of the width and deepening draught of feasible canal craft ( given adequate boat lifting capacity for bypassing the locks).

As to reducing energy use of computers is concerned, server virtualisation, higher electricity prices, yet smaller silicon chip features and the end of Microsofts desktop monopoly resulting in more efficient software could all help. I also dispute the view that wind is unsuited to generating electricity. When you have enough wind turbines connected to the grid, there are very, very rare occasions when there is little harvestable wind available within premium collection areas (Western hills and coastal waters). Other energy needs could be better met through energy conservation, solar heating and district heat and power.