> In article bt.com>, Brimstone
> says...

>> jethro_uk@hotmail.com wrote:

>>> JNugent wrote:

>>>> jethro_uk@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> having an interesting debate at work about peoples s**t jouneys
>>>>> in, and we all seemed to agree that there must be some mileage
>>>>> (pun *intended*) in looking at canal-based transport to alleviate
>>>>> Britains never-ending transport woes. Here's a section of points

>>>>

>>>>> 1) Existing infrastructue. Probably need massive investment to be
>>>>> serious. But since a decent national canal system would also
>>>>> double as a water network, there's a chance of some cross
>>>>> investment.

>>>>

>>>>> 2) Low fuel cost per mile per tonne moved (I have no idea how
>>>>> much a standard narrow boat can carry, nor how much fuel it takes
>>>>> to power it. ...

>Peter Hill wrote:

>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 13:47:46 +0100, "GeoffC" home.invalid.com>
>> wrote:
>>

>>> Nick Finnigan genie.co.uk> wrote:

>>>> GeoffC wrote:

>>>>> Most of the boats on that site...

>Peter wrote:

>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:33:31 -0000, "Brimstone"
>> hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>>> Why can't the canals be improved?

>>
>> Duhg will not permit them to be improved

>
>But canals are organic and are not conducive to the frantic hypermobility
>that Doug says he dislikes so much. How could he not approve?
>

> Conor wrote:

>> In article bt.com>, Brimstone
>> says...

>>> jethro_uk@hotmail.com wrote:

>>>> JNugent wrote:

>>>>> jethro_uk@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> having an interesting debate at work about peoples s**t jouneys
>>>>>> in, and we all seemed to agree that there must be some mileage
>>>>>> (pun *intended*) in looking at canal-based transport to alleviate
>>>>>> Britains never-ending transport woes. Here's a section of points

>>>>>

>>>>>> 1) Existing infrastructue. Probably need massive investment to be
>>>>>> serious. But since a decent national canal system would also
>>>>>> double as a water network, there's a chance of some cross
>>>>>> investment.

>>>>>

>>>>>> 2) Low fuel cost per mile per tonne moved (I have no idea how ...

> Conor wrote:

>> In article bt.com>, Brimstone
>> says...

>>> jethro_uk@hotmail.com wrote:

>>>> JNugent wrote:

>>>>> jethro_uk@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> having an interesting debate at work about peoples s**t jouneys
>>>>>> in, and we all seemed to agree that there must be some mileage
>>>>>> (pun *intended*) in looking at canal-based transport to alleviate
>>>>>> Britains never-ending transport woes. Here's a section of points

>>>>>

>>>>>> 1) Existing infrastructue. Probably need massive investment to be
>>>>>> serious. But since a decent national canal system would also
>>>>>> double as a water network, there's a chance of some cross
>>>>>> investment.

>>>>>

>>>>>> 2) Low fuel cost per mile per tonne moved (I have no idea how
>>>>>> much a standard narrow boat can carry, nor how much fuel it takes ...

> Most of the boats on that site seem to have around 1hp/ton. Most lorries
> have around 10hp/ton. Rail must be somewhere around the 3hp/ton.

> Why can't the canals be improved?

> "Brimstone" hotmail.com> wrote
>

>> Why can't the canals be improved?

>
>
> Because from the moment railways were invented and started being
> built, canals were economically unviable.

> The continental and North American experience indicates otherwise.

> "Brimstone" hotmail.com> wrote>
>
>

>> The continental and North American experience indicates otherwise.

>
>
>
> And in what way is that remotely relevant to anything at all?