Kim the coal regularly drifts up & down the Lea & Stort selling retail to the boats
>On Thursday, January 04, 2007 2:42 AM [GMT+1=CET], >trainfinder22 ><<mailto:trainfinder22%40yahoo.com>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This year we had some bulk boats and a couple of turbines move on the > > New York Canals...The canal is also the prefeered route for factory > > fresh yaughts moving to the great lakes.... > > I suppose that the canal system in Britain could be a great alternive > > to moving fertliser and bulk commditys to and from the farms as the > > barge can park alongside the famer fields and unload fertilser > > straight to the fields as oposed to the railway network were the > > farmer has to pick up his fertliser at a shunting siding... > >There are growing prospects for short-haul traffic. In London, the part of >the system I know best, a traffic in ballast from a gravel pit in Denham to >a cement works in West Drayton has been extablished for about three years. >A large recycling works is being built at Old Oak Common in West London, >with its own new wharf so that traffic can come by water. And the planning >prmission for the site is such that a significant amount of their traffic >will have to be by water. This is on a 30-mile lock-free stretch. In East >London there has been a successful feasibility trial for moving the >tranbsfer of domestic rubbish from road to water. At present that one is >waiting for somebody come come up with the cash to finance the change of >equipment. > >It's significant that all of these are on broad waterways, which can take >barges of an economically-viable size. I very much doubt whether similar >traffic on the narrow canals would be able to pay its way. > >There was a very interesting feasibility study in connection with the West >London recycling project. The study was funded by Transport for London, >which is a department of the Mayor's office. It looked at the economic >plusses and minuses. The biggest negative factor of eater transport is that >it is slow, thus incurring a higher wages cost than road or rail transport. >The study came to the conclusion that transport by water could pay its way >on a trip that had no more than four locks on the route. More than this and >a lorry could make two trips in the time a barge took to make one, thus >cutting the cost of road transport significantly. > >One development that is likely to create new opportunities for freight by >water is a change in the country's regime for management of rubbish. At the >moment much of this is going into land-fill, but this is going to be cut >down (if not cut out) in favour of a mix of recycling and incineration. >Some authorities (including the Mayor of London) are keen to have the new >recycling and incenraion plants built waterside to encourage getting rubbish >traffic off the roads on to the water. > >Also it is hoped that much of the contruction taffic, and later the >supplies, for the 2012 Olympics in East London will travek by water. BW has >worked with outside agencies to build a lig new lock to allow barge access >to parts of the Bow Back Rivers which aren't accessible to barges at the >moment. But it all depends on contractors putting in successful tenders to >cary the goods by water. I am aware that there are some contractors >interestied in doing so. > >Mike Stevens >narrowboat Felis Catus III >web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk > >Defend the waterways. >Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
