Graeme Wall wrote:
> In message <6idlbcFprq7bU1@
mid.individual.net>
> John Williamson
btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Graeme Wall wrote:
>>
>>> Foudry Brook
>>>
>> I don't know the name, but it looks reasonably sized & there's no white
>> water or weirs showing on the aerial pictures, so it's not flowing all
>> that fast. Even the bridges on the existing roads look as if they'd
>> accommodate a narrow canal without modification, but if that's so in
>> reality, it would surprise me.
>
> The Kennet & Avon wasn't a narrow canal, surprisingly enough. It was
> originally designed for the full 70 odd feet by 14 or 16 feet but some of the
> locks have been shortened over the yeras.
>
I know. 72 by 14 feet is what it was built as, now guaranteed as 70 by
12 through to Bath, which is why they have so much trouble maintaining
the summit level depth. I was just suggesting that the branch could be
built narrow to possiby save rebuilding loads of little bridges. The K &
A was built late on in the history of the canal system, as was the Grand
Union, just as the railways started taking over freight transport.
>>>> The motorway is about 8 feet
>>>> above the stream. Looking at the 1:25000 OS map of the area, there's a
>>>> stream already following a route from the western edge of the brewery
>>>> site to the canal that could probably be canalised with not too much
>>>> effort, and it would also be close enough along its route for internal
>>>> factory transport to serve the rest of the estate. The stream is a
>>>> couple of kilometres long, shortest straight line's less. Still not a
>>>> major distance to dig a trench that size. A dozen or so lads with a
>>>> couple of JCB tracked diggers & dump trucks could dig it easily in a
>>>> couple of months. 40,000 tonnes of spoil to move, roughly, & use it to
>>>> fill in part of a nearby gravel pit to make a new factory site or make
>>>> embankments if needed.The OS map shows a level difference from the canal
>>>> of less than 10 metres, probably less than 5 metres.
>>>>
>>> I've only got the 1:50,000 and that suggest a level difference of more
>>> than 10 metres but is not very good for that sort of measurement. The
>>> canal is only about 1m 40 above the Thames level at the nearest point to
>>> Worton Grange
>>>
>>> (Blakes Lock is 1m 07, County Lock is 0m 30)
>>>
>> On the 1:25000 excerpt on the "getamap" section of the OS website,
>> (which is what I checked on, as my paper maps of that area expired a
>> large number of flooded roads ago in the Land Rover),
>
> Land Rovers are rather better at surviving flooding than paper :-)
>
True. :-)
>> they're both between the same pair of contour lines, which are 5 metres
>> apart at that scale. (45 & 50 metres above sea level) The only way to be
>> more accurate would be to borrow a theodolite & survey it properly, or nip
>> down with a GPS unit & check both ends.
>
> Can't you get spot heights from Google Earth? I'd do it myself but I need to
> upgrade my OS before I can use it again. the Landranger maps are limited to
> 10 metre contours and at that scale they are not a great deal of use for
> anything but a broad overview.
>
Google Earth doesn't do useful stuff like that, just pictures,
unfortunately. Good pictures, but not 3D. I daresay I could get better
mapping from OS, but not without buying it. I'm also a couple of hundred
miles away, so I'll not be nipping down just to check the heights with a
GPS.
> The reason I am sceptical is because the mouth of the Kennet is just below
> the 40 metre amsl contour and there's not enough rise in the interveninng
> locks to raise it 5 metres.
>
Unless I misread it & they're between the 40 & 45 metre contour.
The 45 metre line is just north of the canal & the next line south is
just south of the Motorway round the edge of a gravel pit. There's
nothing showing on the hill where the brewery is apart from buildings,
trees & the wind turbine.
>> It's doable, IMHO, if the need is there & the cash is available.
>>
>
> Neither would seem to be, now.
>
It's the way of business.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
