Main Feature
Jetchem Sprint 400 - Cleaning
Jetchem Vanpack
is the Wiedemann Super 1000 recycler which also now offers alongside what might be termed a standard jetting set-up, a smaller jetting option that has a jetting nozzle built-in to an inspection camera that can not only film the cleaning operation as it progresses but which can also be steered in lateral connection simply by remote controlled manipulation of the hose reel at the rear of the truck.
With all the machine options one would think that there is enough to understand already but one of the most important aspects of jetting that is perhaps not taken fully into account by a significant proportion of operating companies is the jetting nozzle. The range of nozzles available is huge and is again possibly a whole article all to itself. But suffice to say, it is not unusual for a unit to be put into the field with a small range of nozzles (or even the one nozzle that came with the jetter when purchased) and then it is put to work on any and all blockages that it comes across whether or not it is the right nozzle or not. This again will be discussed further later.
So having quickly looked at the machine options for cleaning where do they come into play in the UK utility pipeline industry?
A CHANGING WORLD?
There are some indicators and comments that, in more recent times with budgets being squeezed, even in government owned and operated organisations, that perhaps the cleaning regimes are now being looked at over longer terms to reduce costs so that even across Europe there are moves towards Higher Pressure/Lower Volume systems.
In the UK of course the process has something of a different slant in that the water industry, whilst regulated by a government supported body (OFWAT), is privately owned and operated and so has different fiscal pressures on it than those owned and operated by government bodies. This in the
main comes down to shareholders that want to see profits maximised whenever possible. Suffice to say that this means that pipe cleaning budgets are usually set within the overall company operations budget which is part of the overall company cost regime. So these budgets are usually limited within individual companies and with the regular UK regulator-driven Price Reviews being undertaken on a five year cycle and new AMP periods over the same timeframe, cleaning works and budgets work within that same timeframe. Even with competitive tendering by cleaning contractors to the Water Companies’ main contractors in an effort to limit costs, this will and does mean that only a certain amount of cleaning can be achieved within the budget and the five-year cycle. One point that might be significant is that from industry feedback it appears that prices paid for cleaning works in Europe appear to be significantly higher than those available to contractors in the UK. So perhaps targeted cleaning has to be the key here.
European water operations also seem to get more for their money when they pay for ‘cleaning’ in that they have contractors gather information that is more readily archived and so have a reference for the future that might not apparently be as fully available to UK water companies as they are to European operations. Is this a case in the UK of ‘you get what you pay for’?
At the top end of the market this data collection may be something that does occur and the major cleaning operation in the UK do keep the same level of information as those operating in Europe, whether this is the case is perhaps a question that needs to be answered. However at the ‘middle’ and ‘lower’ end of the scale and particularly at the domestic level, more often than not the cleaning operation is, or at least has been until very recently, simply a case of pipe blocked - Yes, so get a man and a van in get it cleared and get the work paid for and off we go to the next one with no thought of why the pipe is blocked or does the pipe need replacing or renovating. The move in 2011 to transfer a significant proportion of the then domestic/privately owned drainage network to the Water Companies did take a very large number of kilometres into new ownership. But there is still a very large proportion of this network that has not been investigated or cleaned simply because budgets to not allow for it, so again provided it keeps working it is presumed to be in good order.
This usually means that much (often a significant proportion) of the cleaning works undertaken are done on a reactive rather than a regular cleaning proactive basis. When there is a blockage it gets removed at the least possible cost to get the pipeline open again.
Most responses to questions asked of those in the industry that were approached in this respect in researching this article commented that this was simply down to cost to the Water Companies. But, without gaining useful data on each the blockages that are cleared and maintaining a full and working database of these
10 drain TRADER | February 2016 |
www.draintraderltd.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80
