Adrian Stott wrote... >"Ralph Rawlinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Locks 1 and 2, originally next to the junction with the River Irwell, >>have been replaced >>by a single deep lock situated to the west of the railway further away >>from the river. > >(sort of XP from URW) > Since you have copied and pasted your reply to me in URW, I shall copy and paste my reply to you, for the benefit of any readers here who don't receive URW...
>Perhaps I'm the only one to be worried by this proliferation of deep >locks (Sowerby Bridge, Bath, etc.). When the waterways were designed, >economy in the use of water was a paramount consideration, and natural >supply was always a priority (although not always achieved, of course, >e.g. Crofton). Now apparently it is OK to adopt wasteful designs,and >backpump. > If you have been following the history of this restoration, you will be aware that there was little choice in this. It was originally intended to have two new locks each with a fall of around 8 ft. However, a huge Victorian sewer was found crossing the route at a depth which made this impossible. There was a limited space between the railway viaduct and the sewer, so a single deep lock was the only viable solution in this situation. >Energy is getting more expensive, you know. > This lock and the two you mention were necessitated by road improvements obliterating the original lock locations. Would it have been more energy efficient to leave the roads unimproved? There are rather more major energy costs involved than just the cost of back pumping. >Will passage of such locks eventually be suject to tolls to pay for >the pumping? > Thank you for your suggestion. I'm sure the Powers That Be have made a note of it for serious future consideration. [Photos of first boats onto new section of canal here: http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk/mbb/mbbc46.htm ] -- Martin Clark Pennine Waterways Website http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk
