Jump to content

Recommended Posts

How is it that pubs restaurants cafes and shops appear to have been functioning from Saturday morning? is there a different supply to households and commercial premises? I cannot get through to Thames Water.


It is frustrating that we are not told the supply is diminishing or will cease, in order to fill kettles, flush toilets etc.


We are a household of four and only one of us had a shower this morning before cessation of supply. First up is the winner.


Whilst considering parents of babies, having to make up feeds and keep little ones clean and fresh, and elderly who possibly cannot carry bottles of water and would not know the supply was variable.

It's the lack of communication that annoys me. I signed up to the SMS service and didn't receive a single update / text. Water supply was OK yesterday and early this morning - then stopped. Apparently this is because they decided to flush the system, without warning, as everyone was getting ready for work. Genius.

dbboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hope this helps


>

> COUNCILLORS - YOU NEED TO GET ONTO THIS, LIKE

> NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW


It is WELL within the councillors' POWER to do something- after all every house that is turned into flats, every spare inch of ground that is now sporting a block of rabbit hutch dwellings ALL have to have planning permission from -yes-you've guessed it- a council employee. So it would follow that the Councillors would be able to STOP the ridiculous planning applications being 'waved' through...until the INFRASTRUCTURE is up to it...next it will be the houses around ED station when they supply the flats there- then it will be the area around Sylvester road after the post office development.....still Southwark council do not give a fig because TW is privatised and they will happily denigrate a private enterprise

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> It is WELL within the councillors' POWER to do

> something- after all every house that is turned

> into flats, every spare inch of ground that is now

> sporting a block of rabbit hutch dwellings ALL

> have to have planning permission from -yes-you've

> guessed it- a council employee. So it would follow

> that the Councillors would be able to STOP the

> ridiculous planning applications being 'waved'

> through...until the INFRASTRUCTURE is up to

> it...next it will be the houses around ED station

> when they supply the flats there- then it will be

> the area around Sylvester road after the post

> office development.....still Southwark council do

> not give a fig because TW is privatised and they

> will happily denigrate a private enterprise


Extra demand lowers water pressure, genius, how does lower water pressure lead to burst pipes?


Hope everyone affected gets their supply back asap.

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How do we know that an increase in demand for

> water rather than an ageing and failing pipe

> network is causing leaks /bursts ?


We don't, but if a meteor crashed into earth uncleglen would say it was LABOUR Southwark Council's fault.

I'd rather local government let Thames Water get on with fixing it (which they have done) and focused on getting their own house in order with stuff like rampant motorbike crime, stabbings, failing social care and selling off public housing to private developments and the absolutely chaotic public transport.


If they fixed any of these long term problems then they would have a leg to stand on accusing thames water of not doing enough in 24 hours.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> uncleglen Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > It is WELL within the councillors' POWER to do

> > something- after all every house that is turned

> > into flats, every spare inch of ground that is

> now

> > sporting a block of rabbit hutch dwellings ALL

> > have to have planning permission from

> -yes-you've

> > guessed it- a council employee. So it would

> follow

> > that the Councillors would be able to STOP the

> > ridiculous planning applications being 'waved'

> > through...until the INFRASTRUCTURE is up to

> > it...next it will be the houses around ED

> station

> > when they supply the flats there- then it will

> be

> > the area around Sylvester road after the post

> > office development.....still Southwark council

> do

> > not give a fig because TW is privatised and

> they

> > will happily denigrate a private enterprise

>

> Extra demand lowers water pressure, genius, how

> does lower water pressure lead to burst pipes?

>

> Hope everyone affected gets their supply back

> asap.


Oh Gawd...spelling it out...WHEN there are 3 flats in 1 house then the pressure has to be INCREASED to supply mains to every flat.....when we had the bad leak about 10 years ago and there were bowsers on every corner for over a week just after the schools went back in September the TW operative was measuring the height of the water as it came out of the main...he said they could not let it through until it was a particular height. AND since we are in a hilly area-the water has to be pumped at particularly high pressure....pipes burst

> Oh Gawd...spelling it out...WHEN there are 3 flats

> in 1 house then the pressure has to be INCREASED

> to supply mains to every flat.....when we had the

> bad leak about 10 years ago and there were bowsers

> on every corner for over a week just after the

> schools went back in September the TW operative

> was measuring the height of the water as it came

> out of the main...he said they could not let it

> through until it was a particular height. AND

> since we are in a hilly area-the water has to be

> pumped at particularly high pressure....pipes

> burst


Oh I see, so you believe that Thames Water deliberately allow pressures in their pipes beyond their tolerances which cause them to burst? I've often wondered what subject you teach/taught, and hope and pray you don't any more - I do hope it wasn't physics.

I had thought that most bursts were caused by (a) deterioration of iron pipework causing it to fail (and joints ditto) and (b) movement in the ground fracturing pipes - particularly of course in roads, where heavy (and 'bouncing' over humps) vehicles cause ground stresses. Additionally adverse weather (freezing) can damage pipework more, particularly where there are already minor leaks. I suppose normal delivery pressures could cause bursts where the pipework is already compromised - but not where pipework is intact. It is designed for high pressure to allow water to move to the top of buildings and on hills. One problem appears to be the back-fill on road works is frequently not so effective as to provide proper support and cushioning for water pipes - hence possibly problems re-occuring at the same point - like London Road as it heads into Forest Hill, and the almost constant leak at the junction of Overhill with Lordship lane.

The government and the water companies all need their feet held to the fire IMO.


https://www.gre.ac.uk/about-us/news/articles/2017/privatised-water-failure


The report shows that increases in our bills since privatisation are not due to increased investment but due to the water companies saddling themselves with debt in order to pay out dividends to shareholders. Welcome to the big neoliberal lie - that privatisation returns increased competition, efficiency and value for the customer. What's that sound you hear trickling down? Is it wealth? No, its another burst water main.


"This report clearly shows that the high prices and high debts of the English water companies are not due to high investments. The companies could have funded all of their operations and investments from customer bills, without taking on any debt whatsoever. The ?47 billion of debt, and the interest we pay on it, is simply down to a systematic extraction of shareholder payouts far in excess of any available cash surplus.


"This system is not sustainable and seriously disadvantages consumers. They have not been helped by a fog of misleading statements by both water companies and the regulator OFWAT. The report further strengthens the case for taking water back into public ownership with strong democratic oversight, as in most European countries."

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
    • My view is that any party that welcomes a self-declared Marxist would merit a negative point. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...