Flooding

  • thesilentone
  • thesilentone's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Playmaker
  • Playmaker
  • my account was hacked
More
12 Feb 2020 16:37 #101 by thesilentone
Replied by thesilentone on topic Flooding
That's what happened at Glenridding. During the day under EA supervision that had to do this that and the other, but not this and that, once the EA team left the site, a couple of local lads jumped on the excavators and did what needed doing.
The following user(s) Liked this post:: Yorkie Blue

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 16:44 #102 by Dazwacky
Replied by Dazwacky on topic Flooding
Glenridding will flood again for sure! you cannot control the level of Ullswater unless you prevent the amount of water coming into it? it baffled me to see the work getting done in the centre and you look and think the problems are elsewhere!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • melbourneblues
  • melbourneblues's Avatar
  • Offline
  • First Team Player
  • First Team Player
More
12 Feb 2020 16:48 #103 by melbourneblues
Replied by melbourneblues on topic Flooding
Happy looks forward to this time of year when he can tell everybody how stupid they are and that he’s the only expert on here, which made it all the more amusing when he didn’t even know what time high tide was on Sunday :-)

Mullen is a virgin.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • thesilentone
  • thesilentone's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Playmaker
  • Playmaker
  • my account was hacked
More
12 Feb 2020 16:55 #104 by thesilentone
Replied by thesilentone on topic Re:Flooding

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:

Happyblue wrote:

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:

Happyblue wrote: Eden bridge seems to act like a damn, in heavy rain fall like this , saw pictures of it earlier , the levels on either side a significantly different , something needs to be done to ease the flow under it .



Do you mean like making it wider and deeper ?

I always laugh when you say twice and wide twice as deep twice the flow , as for one points out how bad at maths you are (2x2 =4 not 2) You can't do it twice as deep or twice as wide as the distance between carlisle and the sea in relation to height above see level is now great enough.
Carlisle is 29m above sea level ,it's 19312.1 meters away from the sea so that means it it drops 0.001m per meter.

Quote clear NS as you haven't actually understood the basics you take away giant obstacles stoping the water .


Where did I say anything about twice the flow ?

You're correct it is four times the flow as i have said on numerous occasions in the past.

But once again you totally miss the point the issue with the Eden [ and its tributaries ] is that when the tide is in there is nowhere for the water to go so you make somewhere by both increasing the capacity of the river to hold the water and by creating floodplains on the farmland around the estuary and then when the tide goes out it will empty ready to fill again on the next tide.

This combined with a programme of upland works designed to both slow down and reduce the amount of water reaching the rivers in the first place. I would have thought a programme of beaver breeding and release would be a very cost-effective way to do that .

But in Carlisle as elsewhere all the EA are interested in doing is designing fancy schemes that they know won't solve the problem that they then sub out and spend millions project managing The scheme in Radcliffe [ i may have said it was Bury ] The council there told the EA what they wanted the EA told them it would cost 3 times what they had in the budget for it . So the council said well just give us the cash you.ve got as we believe we can deliver the project we want for the cash you have available.

So that's what happened the council got the job done by hiring a couple of small local firms to do what after all is a pretty simple job driving in steel piles and although it not finished yet and the landscaping etc still needs to be done guess what it did its job and there was no flooding along the stretch in question.

Any organisation which goes round decommissioning pumps that have protected farmland for decades just because that farmer refuses to take on the financial responsibility for operating, maintaining and replacing the pump just because the EA see that as a way of them saving money.

The EA.S brief should be to protect the country's land from flooding with common sense solutions at reasonable cost Not going round proposing grandiose schemes that earn their employees vast amounts of money and end up doing nothing to solve the problem.

As for Botcherby bridge, there is a very simple very cheap solution that the EA seems to have overlooked One that would have worked unlike their Cobbold together scheme that clearly didn't.


I take you're point, but that's not the case is it. The incoming tide may reduce the flow, however it does not stop it (unless the river is tidal, which in this case it's not). The energy of the flow in one direction maybe resisted by the other, however I take you back to the sluice gate scenario. The energy and head of water during a flood will overcome the resistance of the incoming tide, which would be increased if we dredged the rivers and estury. (which we used to)
Dredging alone would only help, it is not the silver bullet, this along with other actions mentioned above would make a huge difference, but for some reason the EA will not hear of it. Ultimately it's all down to money, and the EA do not appear to have a structure that can deliver large projects at reasonable costs. They should be disbanded and the regional river authorities re-instated. The Warwick Road bridge solution is simple, stop it being a dam when the water rises.
The following user(s) Liked this post:: Yorkie Blue, topstepwhinger

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 18:01 #105 by seesaw50
Replied by seesaw50 on topic Re:Flooding

Happyblue wrote: Also everyone on this thread is trying to come across as an expert but all of them are failing to see the problem of a gradient of bellow 0.01% making it very difficult


Ofcourse it is its the flood plain...its the last part of the rivers journey to the sea....wide flat land usually moving slowly, sedately into the Solway and beyond........except when higher upstream unprecedented heavy rain makes it a raging torrent all the way down

To have been born Cumbrian
is to have won the lottery of life !

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 18:06 #106 by NORTHERNSOUL
Replied by NORTHERNSOUL on topic Re:Flooding

thesilentone wrote:

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:

Happyblue wrote:

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:

Happyblue wrote: Eden bridge seems to act like a damn, in heavy rain fall like this , saw pictures of it earlier , the levels on either side a significantly different , something needs to be done to ease the flow under it .



Do you mean like making it wider and deeper ?

I always laugh when you say twice and wide twice as deep twice the flow , as for one points out how bad at maths you are (2x2 =4 not 2) You can't do it twice as deep or twice as wide as the distance between carlisle and the sea in relation to height above see level is now great enough.
Carlisle is 29m above sea level ,it's 19312.1 meters away from the sea so that means it it drops 0.001m per meter.

Quote clear NS as you haven't actually understood the basics you take away giant obstacles stoping the water .


Where did I say anything about twice the flow ?

You're correct it is four times the flow as i have said on numerous occasions in the past.

But once again you totally miss the point the issue with the Eden [ and its tributaries ] is that when the tide is in there is nowhere for the water to go so you make somewhere by both increasing the capacity of the river to hold the water and by creating floodplains on the farmland around the estuary and then when the tide goes out it will empty ready to fill again on the next tide.

This combined with a programme of upland works designed to both slow down and reduce the amount of water reaching the rivers in the first place. I would have thought a programme of beaver breeding and release would be a very cost-effective way to do that .

But in Carlisle as elsewhere all the EA are interested in doing is designing fancy schemes that they know won't solve the problem that they then sub out and spend millions project managing The scheme in Radcliffe [ i may have said it was Bury ] The council there told the EA what they wanted the EA told them it would cost 3 times what they had in the budget for it . So the council said well just give us the cash you.ve got as we believe we can deliver the project we want for the cash you have available.

So that's what happened the council got the job done by hiring a couple of small local firms to do what after all is a pretty simple job driving in steel piles and although it not finished yet and the landscaping etc still needs to be done guess what it did its job and there was no flooding along the stretch in question.

Any organisation which goes round decommissioning pumps that have protected farmland for decades just because that farmer refuses to take on the financial responsibility for operating, maintaining and replacing the pump just because the EA see that as a way of them saving money.

The EA.S brief should be to protect the country's land from flooding with common sense solutions at reasonable cost Not going round proposing grandiose schemes that earn their employees vast amounts of money and end up doing nothing to solve the problem.

As for Botcherby bridge, there is a very simple very cheap solution that the EA seems to have overlooked One that would have worked unlike their Cobbold together scheme that clearly didn't.


I take you're point, but that's not the case is it. The incoming tide may reduce the flow, however it does not stop it (unless the river is tidal, which in this case it's not). The energy of the flow in one direction maybe resisted by the other, however I take you back to the sluice gate scenario. The energy and head of water during a flood will overcome the resistance of the incoming tide, which would be increased if we dredged the rivers and estury. (which we used to)
Dredging alone would only help, it is not the silver bullet, this along with other actions mentioned above would make a huge difference, but for some reason the EA will not hear of it. Ultimately it's all down to money, and the EA do not appear to have a structure that can deliver large projects at reasonable costs. They should be disbanded and the regional river authorities re-instated. The Warwick Road bridge solution is simple, stop it being a dam when the water rises.


Yes and that could be done in a very grandiose scheme for a single arch bridge which we.ll be waiting 20 years for or they could use a simple method that could be completed in 6 weeks with minimum disruption to traffic pedestrians and the local residents.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 18:25 #107 by Happyblue
Replied by Happyblue on topic Re:Flooding

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:

Happyblue wrote:

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:

Happyblue wrote: Eden bridge seems to act like a damn, in heavy rain fall like this , saw pictures of it earlier , the levels on either side a significantly different , something needs to be done to ease the flow under it .



Do you mean like making it wider and deeper ?

I always laugh when you say twice and wide twice as deep twice the flow , as for one points out how bad at maths you are (2x2 =4 not 2) You can't do it twice as deep or twice as wide as the distance between carlisle and the sea in relation to height above see level is now great enough.
Carlisle is 29m above sea level ,it's 19312.1 meters away from the sea so that means it it drops 0.001m per meter.

Quote clear NS as you haven't actually understood the basics you take away giant obstacles stoping the water .


Where did I say anything about twice the flow ?

You're correct it is four times the flow as i have said on numerous occasions in the past.

But once again you totally miss the point the issue with the Eden [ and its tributaries ] is that when the tide is in there is nowhere for the water to go so you make somewhere by both increasing the capacity of the river to hold the water and by creating floodplains on the farmland around the estuary and then when the tide goes out it will empty ready to fill again on the next tide.

This combined with a programme of upland works designed to both slow down and reduce the amount of water reaching the rivers in the first place. I would have thought a programme of beaver breeding and release would be a very cost-effective way to do that .

But in Carlisle as elsewhere all the EA are interested in doing is designing fancy schemes that they know won't solve the problem that they then sub out and spend millions project managing The scheme in Radcliffe [ i may have said it was Bury ] The council there told the EA what they wanted the EA told them it would cost 3 times what they had in the budget for it . So the council said well just give us the cash you.ve got as we believe we can deliver the project we want for the cash you have available.

So that's what happened the council got the job done by hiring a couple of small local firms to do what after all is a pretty simple job driving in steel piles and although it not finished yet and the landscaping etc still needs to be done guess what it did its job and there was no flooding along the stretch in question.

Any organisation which goes round decommissioning pumps that have protected farmland for decades just because that farmer refuses to take on the financial responsibility for operating, maintaining and replacing the pump just because the EA see that as a way of them saving money.

The EA.S brief should be to protect the country's land from flooding with common sense solutions at reasonable cost Not going round proposing grandiose schemes that earn their employees vast amounts of money and end up doing nothing to solve the problem.

As for Botcherby bridge, there is a very simple very cheap solution that the EA seems to have overlooked One that would have worked unlike their Cobbold together scheme that clearly didn't.

NS you always said twice the flow, I've even just double checked our debates in the passed , on no occasion did you say 4x the flow. You always use to say double the depth double and double the width double the flow .

Also how am I missing the point when you've just agreed with what I've been trying to tell you for years , Ankur slowing the flow of water to the rivers and using land to flood Area away from residents .

Owners like the stadium, full of Sh!T

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 18:32 #108 by Happyblue
Replied by Happyblue on topic Flooding

melbourneblues wrote: Happy looks forward to this time of year when he can tell everybody how stupid they are and that he’s the only expert on here, which made it all the more amusing when he didn’t even know what time high tide was on Sunday :-)

I don't live in the area I just checked it online. Also at no point have a i called anyone stupid ,

Owners like the stadium, full of Sh!T

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 18:36 #109 by Happyblue
Replied by Happyblue on topic Re:Flooding

thesilentone wrote:

Happyblue wrote:

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:

Happyblue wrote: Eden bridge seems to act like a damn, in heavy rain fall like this , saw pictures of it earlier , the levels on either side a significantly different , something needs to be done to ease the flow under it .



Do you mean like making it wider and deeper ?

I always laugh when you say twice and wide twice as deep twice the flow , as for one points out how bad at maths you are (2x2 =4 not 2) You can't do it twice as deep or twice as wide as the distance between carlisle and the sea in relation to height above see level is now great enough.
Carlisle is 29m above sea level ,it's 19312.1 meters away from the sea so that means it it drops 0.001m per meter.

Quote clear NS as you haven't actually understood the basics you take away giant obstacles stoping the water .


The energy in the water is also a factor you are forgetting, in simple terms the wider and deeper the river, the more volume = more energy density partially due to less friction. This factor is proportionally squared no x by. The speed of flow changes with energy density irrespective of the fall, that is why you see a river 'raging ' and fast flowing when full or flooded. You haven't being doing calculations for the EA have you ??

My argument is not that it would not work it's that it's impossible , to put into practice , the cost of making the river twice as wide and deep for the distance would be ridiculous.

Owners like the stadium, full of Sh!T

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 19:18 #110 by CCU
Replied by CCU on topic Flooding
Those of us advocating dredging aren’t saying that’s all that needs done though. More it would be part of several strands of work as NS has just described...

Win or Lose, Up The Blues!
The following user(s) Liked this post:: Mullen103, Arragorn

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 19:55 #111 by Happyblue
Replied by Happyblue on topic Flooding

CCU wrote: Those of us advocating dredging aren’t saying that’s all that needs done though. More it would be part of several strands of work as NS has just described...

Yes but other parts of NS ideas in the passed are against technically impossible.

Owners like the stadium, full of Sh!T

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 20:01 #112 by Happyblue
Replied by Happyblue on topic Flooding
I love how people are disagreeing we me and then repeating what I'm trying to say, all I'm say is because carlisle as low as it is the dredging would not be that affective and that flood prevention needs multiple things.

Also pointing out is that because it didn't flood is not proof that it's the solutions , when the rain fall is unprecedented. The 2005 flood defences would have stopped the events of 1984 , the 2015 flood defences would have stopped the flooding in 2015 , but the problem is both times the rain was record breaking.

The weather is getting more extreme and no one seems to want to spend the money to protect the city .

Owners like the stadium, full of Sh!T

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • thesilentone
  • thesilentone's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Playmaker
  • Playmaker
  • my account was hacked
More
12 Feb 2020 20:03 #113 by thesilentone
Replied by thesilentone on topic Flooding
But we have to do something, there is no doubt climate change is playing a hand, we are being reactive at the moment.

There is a good argument to dig large storm channel across fields from Crosby-on Eden via Todhills across to the Solway at Rockliffe that would only be operational when high rainfall occurred taking the pressure off the Eden through Carlisle.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 20:07 #114 by Happyblue
Replied by Happyblue on topic Flooding

Happyblue wrote: I love how people are disagreeing we me and then repeating what I'm trying to say, all I'm say is because carlisle as low as it is the dredging would not be that affective and that flood prevention needs multiple things.

Also pointing out is that because it didn't flood is not proof that it's the solutions , when the rain fall is unprecedented. The 2005 flood defences would have stopped the events of 1984 , the 2015 flood defences would have stopped the flooding in 2015 , but the problem is both times the rain was record breaking.

The weather is getting more extreme and no one seems to want to spend the money to protect the city .

Corrections- The 2015 defences would have stopped the 2005 floods

Owners like the stadium, full of Sh!T

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 20:15 #115 by Happyblue
Replied by Happyblue on topic Flooding
To be fair we can argue about all we want , but very little will be done , they'll install some stupid pointless "defense " to act as appeasement . They are never going to spend the money to stop the it flooding as we just fall to the back burner for more important regions.

Owners like the stadium, full of Sh!T

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 20:18 #116 by Flatcap
Replied by Flatcap on topic Flooding
Remember it also rains in Carlisle and not just on the hills.

Things are not helped by the amount of tarmac and paved areas (e.g. gardens turned into car parking ) in the town causing an immediate run off of water and very little soaking in to the ground below.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 20:38 #117 by NORTHERNSOUL
Replied by NORTHERNSOUL on topic Re:Flooding

Happyblue wrote:

thesilentone wrote:

Happyblue wrote:

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:

Happyblue wrote: Eden bridge seems to act like a damn, in heavy rain fall like this , saw pictures of it earlier , the levels on either side a significantly different , something needs to be done to ease the flow under it .



Do you mean like making it wider and deeper ?

I always laugh when you say twice and wide twice as deep twice the flow , as for one points out how bad at maths you are (2x2 =4 not 2) You can't do it twice as deep or twice as wide as the distance between carlisle and the sea in relation to height above see level is now great enough.
Carlisle is 29m above sea level ,it's 19312.1 meters away from the sea so that means it it drops 0.001m per meter.

Quote clear NS as you haven't actually understood the basics you take away giant obstacles stoping the water .


The energy in the water is also a factor you are forgetting, in simple terms the wider and deeper the river, the more volume = more energy density partially due to less friction. This factor is proportionally squared no x by. The speed of flow changes with energy density irrespective of the fall, that is why you see a river 'raging ' and fast flowing when full or flooded. You haven't being doing calculations for the EA have you ??

My argument is not that it would not work it's that it's impossible , to put into practice , the cost of making the river twice as wide and deep for the distance would be ridiculous.


And that clearly goes to show that you haven't grabbed the principle of twice as wide twice as deep and how you achieve that over the full route and yes it's easier to do on some places than others.

But take the bit that gives BP its problems that's actually a very simple and cheap fix once Botcherby Bridge is sorted out properly.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 20:38 #118 by Alan
Replied by Alan on topic Flooding
So the plan is the raise the parapet on Botchergate bridge another 26 inches and push back and bank up defences on Melbourne Park to create a larger flood plain I suppose it's worth a try but it hardly smacks of any engineering masterstroke.

A parapet wall getting hit full on by fast deep flowing water and debris sound iffy to me.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 20:46 #119 by Alan
Replied by Alan on topic Flooding
BOTCHERBY FFS.
Bring back editing ta this the shite

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 20:47 #120 by Alan
Replied by Alan on topic Flooding
Is :-D

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 21:12 #121 by Happyblue
Replied by Happyblue on topic Re:Flooding

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:

Happyblue wrote:

thesilentone wrote:

Happyblue wrote:

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:

Happyblue wrote: Eden bridge seems to act like a damn, in heavy rain fall like this , saw pictures of it earlier , the levels on either side a significantly different , something needs to be done to ease the flow under it .



Do you mean like making it wider and deeper ?

I always laugh when you say twice and wide twice as deep twice the flow , as for one points out how bad at maths you are (2x2 =4 not 2) You can't do it twice as deep or twice as wide as the distance between carlisle and the sea in relation to height above see level is now great enough.
Carlisle is 29m above sea level ,it's 19312.1 meters away from the sea so that means it it drops 0.001m per meter.

Quote clear NS as you haven't actually understood the basics you take away giant obstacles stoping the water .


The energy in the water is also a factor you are forgetting, in simple terms the wider and deeper the river, the more volume = more energy density partially due to less friction. This factor is proportionally squared no x by. The speed of flow changes with energy density irrespective of the fall, that is why you see a river 'raging ' and fast flowing when full or flooded. You haven't being doing calculations for the EA have you ??

My argument is not that it would not work it's that it's impossible , to put into practice , the cost of making the river twice as wide and deep for the distance would be ridiculous.


And that clearly goes to show that you haven't grabbed the principle of twice as wide twice as deep and how you achieve that over the full route and yes it's easier to do on some places than others.

But take the bit that gives BP its problems that's actually a very simple and cheap fix once Botcherby Bridge is sorted out properly.

You also fail to grasp , that because the area between carlisle and the sea is that flat that it's impossible.

Owners like the stadium, full of Sh!T

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 21:22 #122 by NORTHERNSOUL
Replied by NORTHERNSOUL on topic Re:Flooding

Happyblue wrote:

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:

Happyblue wrote:

thesilentone wrote:

Happyblue wrote:

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:

Happyblue wrote: Eden bridge seems to act like a damn, in heavy rain fall like this , saw pictures of it earlier , the levels on either side a significantly different , something needs to be done to ease the flow under it .



Do you mean like making it wider and deeper ?

I always laugh when you say twice and wide twice as deep twice the flow , as for one points out how bad at maths you are (2x2 =4 not 2) You can't do it twice as deep or twice as wide as the distance between carlisle and the sea in relation to height above see level is now great enough.
Carlisle is 29m above sea level ,it's 19312.1 meters away from the sea so that means it it drops 0.001m per meter.

Quote clear NS as you haven't actually understood the basics you take away giant obstacles stoping the water .


The energy in the water is also a factor you are forgetting, in simple terms the wider and deeper the river, the more volume = more energy density partially due to less friction. This factor is proportionally squared no x by. The speed of flow changes with energy density irrespective of the fall, that is why you see a river 'raging ' and fast flowing when full or flooded. You haven't being doing calculations for the EA have you ??

My argument is not that it would not work it's that it's impossible , to put into practice , the cost of making the river twice as wide and deep for the distance would be ridiculous.


And that clearly goes to show that you haven't grabbed the principle of twice as wide twice as deep and how you achieve that over the full route and yes it's easier to do on some places than others.

But take the bit that gives BP its problems that's actually a very simple and cheap fix once Botcherby Bridge is sorted out properly.

You also fail to grasp , that because the area between carlisle and the sea is that flat that it's impossible.



Ok now I know why i.m going to regret this but go on then explain that one for me then

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 21:46 #123 by Happyblue
Replied by Happyblue on topic Re:Flooding
The river does not drop enough in the distance to double the depth. Therefore you can't double the depth , The land it's too flat., Carlisle is around 30 meters above sea level and aporx 20 km from the sea from the sea . That means that per km it only drops 1.5 meter on average . It's so flat if you put a Level on the base the bubble would likely appear in the middle

Owners like the stadium, full of Sh!T
The following user(s) Liked this post:: Bruntonpasty

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 21:52 #124 by Happyblue
Replied by Happyblue on topic Re:Flooding
Also imaging the cost of increasing
the depth of 20km of river , that's having to dig through rock that a millions of years of water couldn't cut through.

Owners like the stadium, full of Sh!T
The following user(s) Liked this post:: Bruntonpasty

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 21:57 #125 by seesaw50
Replied by seesaw50 on topic Re:Flooding
The answer lies upstream in the hills....large water runoffs or storage areas..plenty land and an income for farmers who could rent off swathes of land to the EA

To have been born Cumbrian
is to have won the lottery of life !

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 22:09 #126 by Yorkie Blue
Replied by Yorkie Blue on topic Re:Flooding
Happyblue, you`re fixated with Carlisle being 20k from sea level, have a look at your ordnance survey map, it`ll show the Eden is tidal to a point just seaward of Beaumont, that`s sea level. It`s less than half the distance you`re thinking, it`s throwing your calculations out fella.

Stay safe, stay healthy all.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 22:38 #127 by NORTHERNSOUL
Replied by NORTHERNSOUL on topic Re:Flooding

Happyblue wrote: Also imaging the cost of increasing
the depth of 20km of river , that's having to dig through rock that a millions of years of water couldn't cut through.


As I suspected you obviously don't understand how it works Where you can't make it deeper you make it even wider Where you can't make it wider you make it even deeper and remember to make it deeper doesn't necessarily mean going down it could involve building walls up and to make it wider and increase its profile doesn't mean you create a river a mile wide you just create a situation where it could be if it was needed in times of flood by creating a terraced bank.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 22:47 #128 by Happyblue
Replied by Happyblue on topic Re:Flooding

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:

Happyblue wrote: Also imaging the cost of increasing
the depth of 20km of river , that's having to dig through rock that a millions of years of water couldn't cut through.


As I suspected you obviously don't understand how it works Where you can't make it deeper you make it even wider Where you can't make it wider you make it even deeper and remember to make it deeper doesn't necessarily mean going down it could involve building walls up and to make it wider and increase its profile doesn't mean you create a river a mile wide you just create a situation where it could be if it was needed in times of flood by creating a terraced bank.

I get that but what happens in the palace you can't make it wider and deeper ? You create a bottle neck

Owners like the stadium, full of Sh!T

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 22:53 #129 by Happyblue
Replied by Happyblue on topic Re:Flooding

Yorkie Blue wrote: Happyblue, you`re fixated with Carlisle being 20k from sea level, have a look at your ordnance survey map, it`ll show the Eden is tidal to a point just seaward of Beaumont, that`s sea level. It`s less than half the distance you`re thinking, it`s throwing your calculations out fella.

Beaumont is 28.4 meters above sea level

Owners like the stadium, full of Sh!T

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2020 23:12 #130 by Yorkie Blue
Replied by Yorkie Blue on topic Re:Flooding
Beaumont might be, but the Eden aint, if you`ve ever been in that area you`ll know there`s quite a steep drop from the village down to the river.

Stay safe, stay healthy all.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 Feb 2020 08:18 #131 by CarlisleWhite
Replied by CarlisleWhite on topic Re:Flooding

Happyblue wrote:

CarlisleWhite wrote:

Happyblue wrote:

CarlisleWhite wrote:

Happyblue wrote: What I find funny is that people think I'm against dredging , i'm very much for it if it would work and where it works.
The issue is Carlisle is not that far above see level so the impact of dredging would be too small to do any thing and that focus needs to go on a number of things such as pumping stations , re-foreststion on the drainage basin , diversion channels , storage areas.

Each set of defences are designed to stop flooding of the same level. They seem to fail to understand the next storm may be worse

Thought you were a structural engineer HappyBlue?

What about my point counters that ? All I said it's we need a long term solutions not short term

Nothing, but you have said previously you are a structural engineer, and appear to be trying to come across as an expert on this topic.
Everyone entitled to an opinion of course, but good to know who is an enthusitic amateur and who is commenting from a position of experience.

I do risk mitigation as I've told you part of that is flooding ,

Genuine question Happy - how does a structural engineer get involved in flooding? Flooding comes under the remit of civil and geotechnical engineering.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 Feb 2020 08:28 #132 by Markovitch
Replied by Markovitch on topic Re:Flooding
It started as snow so he's no longer mist and ice guy
The following user(s) Liked this post:: Dancingbear

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 Feb 2020 09:32 - 13 Feb 2020 11:00 #133 by CCU
Replied by CCU on topic Flooding

Markovitch wrote: It started as snow so he's no longer mist and ice guy


That’s that bad it’s close to a ban!

:)

Win or Lose, Up The Blues!
Last edit: 13 Feb 2020 11:00 by CCU.
The following user(s) Liked this post:: Waltero, Dancingbear

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 Feb 2020 09:52 #134 by Waltero
Replied by Waltero on topic Re:Flooding
Not up too your usual standard Marko. 5/10 must try harder

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 Feb 2020 11:35 #135 by Markovitch
Replied by Markovitch on topic Re:Flooding
Scrutiny on the Bounty?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 Feb 2020 19:10 #136 by Happyblue
Replied by Happyblue on topic Re:Flooding

CarlisleWhite wrote:

Happyblue wrote:

CarlisleWhite wrote:

Happyblue wrote:

CarlisleWhite wrote:

Happyblue wrote: What I find funny is that people think I'm against dredging , i'm very much for it if it would work and where it works.
The issue is Carlisle is not that far above see level so the impact of dredging would be too small to do any thing and that focus needs to go on a number of things such as pumping stations , re-foreststion on the drainage basin , diversion channels , storage areas.

Each set of defences are designed to stop flooding of the same level. They seem to fail to understand the next storm may be worse

Thought you were a structural engineer HappyBlue?

What about my point counters that ? All I said it's we need a long term solutions not short term

Nothing, but you have said previously you are a structural engineer, and appear to be trying to come across as an expert on this topic.
Everyone entitled to an opinion of course, but good to know who is an enthusitic amateur and who is commenting from a position of experience.

I do risk mitigation as I've told you part of that is flooding ,

Genuine question Happy - how does a structural engineer get involved in flooding? Flooding comes under the remit of civil and geotechnical engineering.

My area was actually, mechanical , but I actually didn't enjoy it the much, but I've always took a look at all fields of engineering .
I the company I work for is very interested in reducing the impact of the flooding and consider I also calculate the potential risk , i.e cost etc it's quite easy to work out what kind of firm I work for .

My knowledge of flood prevention comes from my colleagues, I often talk about it with them at work. I don't know everything I just know like what your know the NS idea is not possible and you would know if it was the cost would be so extreme no one would go for it.

Owners like the stadium, full of Sh!T
The following user(s) Liked this post:: CarlisleWhite

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • thesilentone
  • thesilentone's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Playmaker
  • Playmaker
  • my account was hacked
More
14 Feb 2020 12:20 #137 by thesilentone
Replied by thesilentone on topic Re:Flooding
Did I read the words "Dredging" from a Country BELOW sea level !!

www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb...flooding-netherlands

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Bumble
  • Bumble's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • First Team Player
  • First Team Player
More
15 Feb 2020 19:43 #138 by Bumble
Replied by Bumble on topic Re:Flooding
Sitting on the bus home from Crawley getting rather agitated in case I can't get home tonight. At least I can go somewhere else. Must be awful waiting to see if it's going to flood your house again.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Feb 2020 19:57 #139 by seesaw50
Replied by seesaw50 on topic Re:Flooding
The EA said earlier that the peak tonight at 11pm in Appleby is expected to be below 3 metres and again tomorrow at 11am just over 3 meters ...so lower than last weeks 4 metres .
Hope you make it ok Barbara.

To have been born Cumbrian
is to have won the lottery of life !

The following user(s) Liked this post:: Dancingbear

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Feb 2020 20:15 #140 by Arnyt2
Replied by Arnyt2 on topic Re:Flooding
flood siren just gone off in appleby .not good news

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Feb 2020 21:28 #141 by seesaw50
Replied by seesaw50 on topic Re:Flooding
So at what point is it triggered
An hour and a half till the predicted peak

To have been born Cumbrian
is to have won the lottery of life !

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Feb 2020 21:29 #142 by seesaw50
Replied by seesaw50 on topic Re:Flooding
The Caldew at Cummersdale is on the list of alerts now....nothing on Warwick Road tho

To have been born Cumbrian
is to have won the lottery of life !

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Feb 2020 23:04 #143 by CCU
Replied by CCU on topic Flooding
Chuck in last weekend and that’s some rain in a week or so...


Win or Lose, Up The Blues!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Bumble
  • Bumble's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • First Team Player
  • First Team Player
More
15 Feb 2020 23:56 #144 by Bumble
Replied by Bumble on topic Flooding
Got home ok, the river was near the road but hadn't reached it, so the bridge wasn't shut, pheww. It was still rising at 11.30pm

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 Feb 2020 00:08 #145 by Kessler
Replied by Kessler on topic Flooding
Good to hear Bumble (that you got home, not that the water still rising)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 Feb 2020 12:18 #146 by Arnyt2
Replied by Arnyt2 on topic Flooding
river over again on sands .second time in 12 hrs.no sign of any envirment. local response team doing great job.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Feb 2020 07:13 #147 by Arnyt2
Replied by Arnyt2 on topic Flooding
flood siren gone off again in appleby this morning at 6am

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.458 seconds
Website and all content © Copyright 2020 TheCumbrians.net. All Rights Reserved.