Jump to content

Recommended Posts

God I hate Thames Water. It astounds me the number of times the water has gone off since I've lived in East Dulwich, at least once a year and 2009 is no different.

We're in Etherow Street and currently got low water pressure and have just spoken to THames Water who tell me that the main has been shut off since around 4pm. They hope to have it fixed within 6 hours but from bitter experience I know the Thames Water concept of time is quite different to real time.

Anyway, they advised me to fill some pans etc in case the supply goes off altogether later so figured I'd pass that on.

It's not actually Thames Water's fault. Any physicist will tell you that it's the weather! If you had walked around London you would have seen quite a few burst pipes and water streaming out overground, coming from underground....There was even a main burst in Herne Hill I heard....don't quote me on that though....


Anyway what happens, is that we had 7 days of weather where the temperature was nearly constantly around freezing, so the water in some pipes froze , and then when it melted it expanded , thus some pipes burst etc....I'm guessing the low pressure/no pressure might be because of this....


If anybody wants to check if the area in which they live is effect by this, feel free to check out Thames Water's website here

Our water has gone off winter, spring, summer and fall. Every time Thames Water fail to give any warning that they're about to shut off supplies and fail to accurately predict when the water might come back on.

They are, if you'll pardon the pun, a shower.

Stevie - guys doing the burst in Elland Road on Sunday said that it was not so much water freezing in the pipes as water freezing in the soil around the pipes and splitting the old cast iron pipes laid down here in 1890 or so


They went on to say lots of burst and leaking pipes could come from lots of soil / ground movement for other reasons than freezing - e.g. heavy traffic on roads not designed for them

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

    • Do you have a link to this? The only one i could find was on the 24th July
    • Yes and I heard the other day that there is a higher conviction rate with trials heard by only a judge, vs juries, which makes sense when you think about it.  Also - call me cynical - I can't help but think that this justice reform story was thrown out to overshadow the Reeves / OBR / Budget story.  But I do agree with scrapping juries for fraud cases. 
    • judges are, by definition, a much narrower strata of society. The temptation to "rattle through" numbers, regardless of right, wrong or justice is fundamentally changed If we trust judges that much, why have we ever bothered with juries in the first place? (that's a rhetorical question btw - there is no sane answer which goes along the lines of "good point, judges only FTW"
    • Ah yes, of course, I'd forgotten that the cases will be heard by judges and not Mags. But how does losing juries mean less work for barristers, though? Surely all the other problems (no courtrooms, loos, witnesses etc etc) that stop cases going to trial, or slow trials down - will still exist? Then they'll still be billing the same? 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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