BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

bobzmyunkle

Über Member
I vaguely remember from my history lessons, the Romans had a means of doing this, was it something about aqueducts?
Keilder to Lincolnshire, that's a lot of lead. More aesthetic than pylons though.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20240927_092548.jpg
    IMG_20240927_092548.jpg
    217.5 KB · Views: 0

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
Keilder to Lincolnshire, that's a lot of lead. More aesthetic than pylons though.

Just think of the thieving possibilities, for the local scallywags 😂
 

Pblakeney

Active Member
Is the problem not that the water is in the "wrong" place?

For example, there is a massive reservoir at Kielder, built to service a Steel Plant on Teesside that never materialised, but, all that water in Northumberland is of little use to those in (say) Linconshire, if it cannot be easily and inexpensively transported.

I vaguely remember from my history lessons, the Romans had a means of doing this, was it something about aqueducts?

I'm fairly certain that it rains in Lincolnshire as well as Kielder.
 
OP
OP
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Senior Member
I think it rains more in some places than others.

A problem is that the driest area of the England (the South East) rain-wise has very few reservoirs and the highest population. Devon was in a fairly precarious situation until the biggies (Wimbleball and Roadford) were built, though they'd already grasped the nettle with ones such as Meldon etc. IIRC they needed a bit of a sledgehammer to get permission granted, but I don't hear anyone moaning these days, other than when they still have to bring in hosepipe bans.
 

icowden

Squire
A problem is that the driest area of the England (the South East) rain-wise has very few reservoirs and the highest population.
But on the map in the BBC article our reservoirs are fine. It's Wales and the North that have the problem. We have loads of big reservoirs in the South East because we get less rain There are fewer in Wales and the North because traditionally it's always raining.
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
But on the map in the BBC article our reservoirs are fine. It's Wales and the North that have the problem. We have loads of big reservoirs in the South East because we get less rain There are fewer in Wales and the North because traditionally it's always raining.

Kielder (Northumberland) is the biggest reservoir, by volume of water, in the UK.
 
Last edited:

Ian H

Legendary Member
But on the map in the BBC article our reservoirs are fine. It's Wales and the North that have the problem. We have loads of big reservoirs in the South East because we get less rain There are fewer in Wales and the North because traditionally it's always raining.

The big Welsh reservoirs mostly feed Birmingham.
 
OP
OP
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Senior Member
But on the map in the BBC article our reservoirs are fine. It's Wales and the North that have the problem. We have loads of big reservoirs in the South East because we get less rain There are fewer in Wales and the North because traditionally it's always raining.

I was trying to find figures for water storage per head of population for the various areas, but failed. But I think that the whole of the SE has the same number of large reservoirs as the whole of the SE, despite the massive difference in population. IIRC, the SE relies more heavily on groundwater aquifers.
 

icowden

Squire
I was trying to find figures for water storage per head of population for the various areas, but failed. But I think that the whole of the SE has the same number of large reservoirs as the whole of the SE, despite the massive difference in population. IIRC, the SE relies more heavily on groundwater aquifers.

I live in reservoir land. 10 reservoirs within 20 minutes drive (3 within 5 minutes and 1 about a two minute walk away!)
 

Psamathe

Senior Member
It’s one of the failings of the "move fast and break things" - each "break" finds one thing. Next break finds the fault that would have happened last time had a different break not happened first.

Plus it only finds catastrophic failures, not those that "didn’t quite come to light this time ... but when you put humans aboard".

How would the airline industry have developed if every aircraft shortcoming meant an aircraft full of passengers falling out of the sky.

Some things take time and cost money to develop. Doesn't mean we've got it right waiting for catastrophic failures to identify shortcomings isn't necessary better.

Ian
Saw a documentary on TV a few days ago about the OceanGate sub tragedy. That sort of highlighted the shortcomings of the "move fast and break things" approach to testing. There were other failings which only emerged into public domain after the tragedy.

Ian
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

First Aspect

Active Member
Saw a documentary on TV a few days ago about the OceanGate sub tragedy. That sort of highlighted the shortcomings of the "move fast and break things" approach to testing. There were other failings which only emerged into public domain after the tragedy.

Ian

Oceangate weren't really "testing" anything though were they? They were using something untested, which isn't the same thing.
 
Top Bottom