"Neil Arlidge" <[email protected]> wrote: >If you read: >http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=42750&strquery=stratford%20c.1930 >and look at: >http://www.old-maps.co.uk/ >and >http://www.newham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/336B4CFE-ADC5-426D-9C86-4B2A6D1BBA3C/0/3MillsLRDoc.pdf >You will find that Channelsea River extends down to the junction just before >Three Mills and that Abbey Creek was the stub off the Channelsea River to >the west. >Abbey River is now connected to the Channelsea River, just below the >Northern Outfall Sewer (present head of navigation), there being an island >between the two waterways. >Bow Creek terminates at Three Mills.
Accepted. >As for siltation, I would have thought that this would now be worse [in the >Waterworks River (WWR)], without the >scouring action of the tide? It seems not. The tidewater that used to enter the BBR (except WWR) was (already) laden with silt, which it dropped into the waterways. It didn't get scoured away when the tide went out, because the current in the waterways during that period was insufficient to lift the deposited silt. I think WWR had reached a stable situation before the current works were undertaken, in which on each tide about the same amount of silt came in and was taken out. There was a lot of silt in it all the time. With the new lock and weir, dredging has been undertaken to provide a more commodious channel, into which BW naturally wants to avoid silty Thames water flowing. >> BTW, I understand that pleasure craft access into WWR (mostly to get >> to the moorings in Prescott Channel) will be via City Mill Lock, but >> not until after the Olympics. > >This is interesting and makes a lot of sense for pleasure craft to not to be >constrained by tides, but not much sense for the continual use of Prescott >Lock. The plan is for WWR and Three Mills (née Prescott) Lock to continue to be used in the long term for delivery of construction materials for the redevelopment of Stratford, and for removing construction spoil and domestic waste. >It would appear that the PLA should have built Prescott Lock and BW have >been conned! Don't think so. PLA had no interest in building the lock, while for BW it provided additional non-tidal water helping to contribute to the revival of the BBR. >...It would appear they have no idea where their jusisdiction >now ends. <tries to sort out grammar in the above sentence, assumes "jusisdiction" was meant to be "jurisdictions"> I bet they do. >I suppose BW were on the promise of more nice real estate to >parcel up for re-development, after the Olympics. BW now owns almost no real estate in the BBR area, and I have never heard that it will be acquiring any there as a result of the Olympics or otherwise. It wants to create some moorings, but it turns out there is precious little land on which it can do that. >So BW have held onto their soon to be created "arms length" property >division... but can you *really* see the "Conservatives" continuing with >this, in the present bankrupt state of this nation? Yes. AIUI, BW has discussed this with the Conservatives, and been reassured. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
