Forum menu
yeh i think that delivered water pressure is determined by head and not pressurisation vessels and is thus at east partly determined by elevation.
ergo it's not necessarily something they can just 'turn down'
[i]they don't put any in[/i]
If you buy shares, you put money in.
[i]I don't know how much sort of micro-topographical control they have over water pressure though. I think in nearest village to me there must be a 50m height change in about 500m of horizontal distance, and what seems like low water pressure at the top of the hill, might seem really high at the bottom. [/i]
This. Certainly in hilly places an awful lot of the pressure is achieved from gravity. The service reservoirs tend to be as high as possible to avoid having to pump.
Samuri - the infrastructure was already there - the money they paid for shares went into the governments coffers.
They take out money now - in the form of profits. tehy do not put any in.
Pressure won't get turned down, you'd have to go out to thousands and thousands of little booster stations all over the region and manually adjust the pumps, half of which are fixed speed anyway so cant be fiddled with. That would be a huuuge job and the operations staff are stretched to the limit as it is anyway. Plus the network modelling required to check which areas have any spare capacity anyway would be massive.
Fixing leaks is obviously important but it's not an overnight fix, whereas limiting peoples usage (hosepipe ban) is.
Well again, ignoring Scotland, the money that I pay right now for shares in a water company, goes to that water company. But that's nothing compared to the Billions that a large water company will take in revenue. The huge turnover that all water companies operate gives a good indication of how enormously expensive it is to supply water and take poo away never mind repair those systems.
TandemJeremy - Member
Samuri - the infrastructure was already there - the money they paid for shares went into the governments coffers.
Yawn. The infrastructure was there in 1991 when the companies were privatised. Obviously this is all magic stuff that doesnt age or wear or need replacing or upgrading as the population grows 🙄
i agree, but where it is possible (i.e. variable speed pumps) it would be an option. This would obviously be something that is different in each area so quite location specific.chamley - Member
Pressure won't get turned down, you'd have to go out to thousands and thousands of little booster stations all over the region and manually adjust the pumps, half of which are fixed speed anyway so cant be fiddled with. That would be a huuuge job and the operations staff are stretched to the limit as it is anyway. Plus the network modelling required to check which areas have any spare capacity anyway would be massive.
I think what this thread does highlight is the general misunderstanding by the public of how complex and difficult it actually is to turn raw water into something that meets drinking water regulations.
It also highlights a few water company employees lurking on STW 😉
Yup, quite a few of us water industry (companies, regulators, supply chain) folk on here. Some of us have even been on all three sides of the fence 😉 and have seen it from different perspectives. Believe it or not, one of our parish (not me!) is actually probably one of the best people in the UK to really know where things are at with Thames Water's supply/demand situation...
Not really a subject that can be fully discussed on an internet forum but it's reassuring to see that the full spectrum of societal opinion is represented on here, albeit with the more rational views seeming to prevail over the Daily Wail-style rants 😀
In response to the OP - companies can and do use pressure management as one form of leakage control, while (as others have said) being subject to delivering a minimum standard of service (DG2) in the pressure at the customer's tap.
oops i meant 1989 for privatisation 😳
This could be a good opportunity for an inter-company forum ride in the future?Yup, quite a few of us water industry (companies, regulators, supply chain) folk on here
edit: obviously on dirty bikes that have not been washed by hosepipe 😉
Yawn. The infrastructure was there in 1991 when the companies were privatised. Obviously this is all magic stuff that doesnt age or wear or need replacing or upgrading as the population grows
yes - but the shareholders have not put in more money since have they? they simply take money out in profits. Any investment comes from revenue does it not? or are they really issuing new share capital IE putting in more money of their own?
And I still maintain that since most people are already unattractive, they have little to gain from washing themselves in clean water so they could save money and help the drought situation by collecting water in a butt and rinsing themselves down once a week from that.
[i]edit: obviously on dirty bikes that have not been washed by hosepipe [/i]
I can use a hosepipe, our reservoirs are nice and full. 😉
yes - but the shareholders have not put in more money since have they? they simply take money out in profits. Any investment comes from revenue does it not? or are they really issuing new share capital IE putting in more money of their own?
The water companies have substantially reduced leakage in the last few years - Thames Water down by a quarter IIRC. Regardless of your or my views on privatisation, money has been invested. A lot of money.
NO it hasn't ransos - they have not put in more money from outside. they have used revenue to build more stuff and taken a part of the revenue out of the system as profit
Excellent idea, matthewlhome 🙂 I reckon Cannock is the best bet travelwise if it was to involve as many companies as possible.
[slight hijack] I've been looking to put together a WaterAid industry event for a couple of years, say a 12 hour relay with mixed teams of companies/regulators/supply chain, to get some rapport going between the various 'tribes' (having worked in all three, I know this is would be useful!).
Venue is my biggest headache! Insurance, liability etc. I'm thinking some of Welsh Water's Elan Valley catchment would be good. Or maybe Yorkshire Water's Langsett area. Choices...
I'm also working with some other people to pull together an overall umbrella (no pun intended!) within which any cycling activities in support of WaterAid can fit and which would act as some sort of 'hub' for information / resources. Should be launching soon. [slight hijack over, apologies]
Go on TJ, show us your sources for the proof that there's been no investment brought in.
Thames Water, pisses over 25% of its water into the ground through leakages
That is a little worrying or am I taking it too literally as they are responsible for our sewage..
As for leaks it is amazing how many have them outside of their house but do not report them. The problem is that everyone thinks someone else will do it.
yes - but the shareholders have not put in more money since have they? they simply take money out in profits. Any investment comes from revenue does it not? or are they really issuing new share capital IE putting in more money of their own?
how many private businesses only grow the business with money from shareholder investment? Business runs by making money and reinvesting the profit. The type of investors that utilities are bought into by are looking for long term gain e.g. Pension funds so they are interested in keeping everything running properly.
Matthew - my point simply is that they could do more to stop the leaks but take profits out instead. while they are leaking that much every penny possible should be invested in stopping leaks - not taking billions out of the system in profits.
Keep us in the loop then drain. We already do cycling events for WaterAid and similar with director level involvement so I'm sure we could generate a lot of interest here.
I'll let you use my Lake District if you want. Remember to leave it how you found it though.
Matthew - my point simply is that they could do more to stop the leaks but take profits out instead.
The leakage target is set by the regulator.
yes - but the shareholders have not put in more money since have they? they simply take money out in profits. Any investment comes from revenue does it not? or are they really issuing new share capital IE putting in more money of their own?
Don't let the facts get in the way
All the water companies have a debt and equity mix for their financing except for Scotland, Welsh, and NI.
The profits (which are regulated) pay dividends which are the returns for the equity investors. Interest on debt is hidden and the level of gearing regulated by Ofwat, which is why a simplistic analysis of the financing is misleading.
I suppose you would be happier with the £40 billion invested being public debt. Just wait for your rates bill to start going up with Scotlands massive investment gap.
I assume that you're talking about nationalistic Scottish water suppliers TJ as Thames Water is spending multi millions a year upgrading the Victorian infrastructure in west London.
NO it hasn't ransos - they have not put in more money from outside. they have used revenue to build more stuff and taken a part of the revenue out of the system as profit
Who said anything about bringing in money from outside? Revenues that would otherwise be profit have been spent on infrastructure.
So they haven't atualy brought in any new investment then? merely taken out potential investment as profits.
Yes - and they take out 200 million a year as profits that could be being spent on repairsaP - MemberI assume that you're talking about nationalistic Scottish water suppliers TJ as Thames Water is spending multi millions a year upgrading the Victorian infrastructure in west London
If you have a problem with how they use their money then how about complaining to those who deal with these issues - http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/
@samuri - ta muchly! Not a gel wrapper will remain... 😉 I'll drop you a line if that's ok.
I was very impressed with the UU team JOGLE (or was it LEJOG?) relay last year. Welsh has their annual Tour de Taff (in which their MD usually wups everyone, he's a bit good!). Yorkshire has its second annual coast-coast lined up and it's a successful (oversubscribed!) format. I know the EA have done similar things.
So it all looks to have a lot of potential. Probably worth a separate thread - apologies OP 😳
@TJ - this might help with some background as to why revenue is not the only (or even main) source of investment. [url= http://www.water.org.uk/home/policy/positions/finance-and-investment ]finance_investment[/url] If profit levels aren't sufficiently attractive, capital costs more (and there would be less put in by investors), so bills would go up.
Obviously this doesn't apply where you are in Scotland though, where Scottish Water gets its money at the same cost of capital as the government (but pays the price of being at the whim of political expediency, and which is even more apparent in how Northern Ireland Water is a political football).
TJ you haven't answered my question. Where's your proof?
So they haven't atualy brought in any new investment then? merely taken out potential investment as profits.
They're private companies. By (amongst other things) paying dividends to shareholders, they are able to attract investment not available to a publicly-owned company. The corollary is that they need to make a profit in order to give those shareholders a return on their investment.
I'm not in favour of privately-owned monopolies any more than you are, but to assert that these companies haven't invested in infrastructure is demonstrably false.
Its very simple. They have not brought more money in to the system. they have taken money out of it. finance is more expensive to a commercial company rather than a government agency.
so you get less twice - once in more expensive debt and then again as they take their profits out.
200 million a year taken out in profit by Thames water. thats more than they spend on fixing pipes is it not?
its not like this is a new issue is it? its been going on for decades. How much money has been taken out in profits since privatisation?
Its very simple. They have not brought more money in to the system. they have taken money out of it. finance is more expensive to a commercial company rather than a government agency.
Yet leakage rates are far lower now than they were 20 years ago. What does that tell you?
To clarify my previous post: leakage rates are far lower in England & Wales, at 22%. Scottish water is much less impressive at 38%.
Come on TJ, the nasty private English water companies with their awful profits have invested more in infrastructure than the Scotch ones. Where's your proof that profit has limited investment and why are the Scotch ones not doing so?
There's an important difference between making a profit of £200 million and taking £200 million 'out as a profit'.
Some of the profit will be 'taken out' in the form of dividend payments, but the majority will be ploughed back into infrastructure improvements.
Unfortunately TJ, the real-world funding models of major utilities are not as simplistic as they would be in your utopian socialist idyll.
yeh i think that delivered water pressure is determined by head and not pressurisation vessels and is thus at east partly determined by elevation.ergo it's not necessarily something they can just 'turn down'
And back to the OP. The water pressure is routinely turned down overnight in a lot of areas to reduce both leakage and energy use. When there's a big fire with lots of pumps sucking at the mains it's normal for the Fire service to call the water company and request more pressure.
So yes, they could reduce the water pressure in most places, but maybe not in hilly gravity fed areas - but most of them don't have a shortage!
How low they can go? I don't know the answer to that.
big_n_daft - Member"The hose pipe ban will save 5% water, they lose 5 times more than that through leakage"
you will never have zero leakage, it's essentially impossible.
😀 That is one hell of a leap, from me expressing my disapproval at the worst leakage record of any company in Britain, to assuming that I'm expecting "zero leakage" !