Why are RIver Stort locks 13ft wide?

[MoominPapa]

Just that, really.  I can understand how anomalies like the L&L and fens happened on isolated waterways long before they interconnected, but why build a 15 mile river navigation which connects to another river and then to the Thames, and make the locks 13ft wide, rather than the 14ft of the river you're connecting to?

Cheers,

MP.

 

[magpie patrick]

Several answers - none conclusive

Both the Stort and the Lee are very old navigations, there is some suggestion that the Lee was the first navigation in England to have a pound lock, sometime in the 15th century, so the sizes they are now is not the size they started out at. The Lee was modernised without the same thing happening on the Stort, some time in the early 20th century I think. Bradshaws 1904 notes that locks on the Lee above Enfield are 13 feet 3 inches wide, only a few inches wider than the Stort Locks: that isn't the case now

Boat traffic tended to stick to regular routes, there would have been "Stort Barges" and they would have been adequate for the trade on the Stort, the larger Lee barges had enough trade without wandering up this backwater. Narrow boats didn't venture up this way at all so fitting in two side by side wasn't a consideration.

I notice that in Bradshaws 1904 the proprietor for the Stort is a single individual, Sir Walter Gilbey. I know nothing about him but he was presumably running it as a private venture. The proprietors for the Lee were the Lee Conservancy, the term "Conservancy" tends to imply "looking after the interests of the river" and "not for profit" - I'd guess they were more interested in the wider benefits of good management and improvements, rather than just avoiding spending money. 

[mark99]

Very long too.

[Stilllearning]

3 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

Several answers - none conclusive

Both the Stort and the Lee are very old navigations, there is some suggestion that the Lee was the first navigation in England to have a pound lock, sometime in the 15th century, so the sizes they are now is not the size they started out at. The Lee was modernised without the same thing happening on the Stort, some time in the early 20th century I think. Bradshaws 1904 notes that locks on the Lee above Enfield are 13 feet 3 inches wide, only a few inches wider than the Stort Locks: that isn't the case now

Boat traffic tended to stick to regular routes, there would have been "Stort Barges" and they would have been adequate for the trade on the Stort, the larger Lee barges had enough trade without wandering up this backwater. Narrow boats didn't venture up this way at all so fitting in two side by side wasn't a consideration.

I notice that in Bradshaws 1904 the proprietor for the Stort is a single individual, Sir Walter Gilbey. I know nothing about him but he was presumably running it as a private venture. The proprietors for the Lee were the Lee Conservancy, the term "Conservancy" tends to imply "looking after the interests of the river" and "not for profit" - I'd guess they were more interested in the wider benefits of good management and improvements, rather than just avoiding spending money. 

Walter Gilbey was the co founder of Gilbey wine merchants and I think, Gilbey's gin, and came from Bishop's Stortford.

[mark99]

2 hours ago, Stilllearning said:

Walter Gilbey was the co founder of Gilbey wine merchants and I think, Gilbey's gin, and came from Bishop's Stortford.

Probably ratarsed when he drew up the spec.

[Pluto]

In the 1760s, when the Stort was canalised, there was no particular width for canal locks. Most of the early 18th century river navigations seem to have had locks around 13 feet wide, as found at first on the Douglas and Aire & Calder. The Newry Canal had locks 15 feet wide, and other early, pre 1760, Irish canals were originally designed with locks of more than this. It was the Sankey Navigation, followed by the Bridgewater, which settled on the 14 feet dimension for lock width, based on the size of the smaller coastal craft around the Mersey, with most subsequent wide canals using this dimension. The narrow canal system developed from this, as two narrow boats were expected to be able to use those wide locks. The decision to use narrow locks reflects the uncertainty in the Midlands that canals would be successful, so finance was difficult to raise. The new merchant class in Lancashire and Yorkshire recognised the necessity of building wide canals to create a successful local economy, and for the next 100 years, the financial value of exports from the UK came predominantly from textiles produced in these areas.

[mykaskin]

The Stort Navigation was a separate company to the River Lea Navigation, and wanted to ensure that their craft were used for the complete journey. They settled on a smaller dimension to force shippers to use their carrying company for the journey, this way other companies boats could not be used.

[Athy]

7 minutes ago, mykaskin said:

The Stort Navigation was a separate company to the River Lea Navigation, and wanted to ensure that their craft were used for the complete journey. They settled on a smaller dimension to force shippers to use their carrying company for the journey, this way other companies boats could not be used.

That makes very good sense.

 

The cunning so-and-so's.

[Pluto]

41 minutes ago, mykaskin said:

The Stort Navigation was a separate company to the River Lea Navigation, and wanted to ensure that their craft were used for the complete journey. They settled on a smaller dimension to force shippers to use their carrying company for the journey, this way other companies boats could not be used.

The Lee was improved under John Smeaton's direction after an Act for this was passed in 1766, with locks being 13 feet wide by 85 feet long. The locks were enlarged from around 1850 to the current size. By this time, the Stort had declined in importance, so was not enlarged. As I mentioned in my earlier post, navigation locks tended to be around 13 feet wide until the 14 feet standard was set by waterways around the Mersey, from which the seven foot narrowboat emerged after canal promoters in the Midlands did not have enough confidence in canals to pay for the 14 feet locks then being built elsewhere. In Ireland, the locks were standardised at 13 feet 6 inches in width, though poor control by Parliament resulted in the Ulster Canal being built narrower.

[magpie patrick]

2 hours ago, mykaskin said:

The Stort Navigation was a separate company to the River Lea Navigation, and wanted to ensure that their craft were used for the complete journey. They settled on a smaller dimension to force shippers to use their carrying company for the journey, this way other companies boats could not be used.

The flaw in that argument is that Bradshaw 1904 lists the two as being the same size above Enfield 

[Machpoint005]

Because if they were only 12ft wide they'd overflow?

Edited May 24, 2017 by Machpoint005
sp.

[mykaskin]

4 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

The flaw in that argument is that Bradshaw 1904 lists the two as being the same size above Enfield 

Which does seem to make that cobblers - I did read it somewhere, but not sure where now. 

Mike

[AMModels]

On 5/21/2017 at 19:07, Pluto said:

In the 1760s, when the Stort was canalised, there was no particular width for canal locks. Most of the early 18th century river navigations seem to have had locks around 13 feet wide, as found at first on the Douglas and Aire & Calder. The Newry Canal had locks 15 feet wide, and other early, pre 1760, Irish canals were originally designed with locks of more than this. It was the Sankey Navigation, followed by the Bridgewater, which settled on the 14 feet dimension for lock width, based on the size of the smaller coastal craft around the Mersey, with most subsequent wide canals using this dimension. The narrow canal system developed from this, as two narrow boats were expected to be able to use those wide locks. The decision to use narrow locks reflects the uncertainty in the Midlands that canals would be successful, so finance was difficult to raise. The new merchant class in Lancashire and Yorkshire recognised the necessity of building wide canals to create a successful local economy, and for the next 100 years, the financial value of exports from the UK came predominantly from textiles produced in these areas.

Did anyone ever cost the differential between narrow canals and wider ones? I think it would definitely have changed the whole feel of canals if boats had been of a wider build. 

 

[Pluto]

5 minutes ago, AMModels said:

Did anyone ever cost the differential between narrow canals and wider ones? I think it would definitely have changed the whole feel of canals if boats had been of a wider build. 

 

Looking at the suggested costs for a wide and/or narrow Rochdale Canal, it was anticipated that a narrow canal would cost around one third less than a wide one, the 1792 estimates being £350,000 against £234,000. The decision was influenced by what sort of cargoes would be carried, and whether narrow or wide boats would be better, as well as overall cost. Wide boats would have been much more useful on northern waterways, to maximise stability on boats carrying heavy baled goods for the textile industry, while narrowboats would be fine for the much lighter goods, such as crockery and smallware, from the Potteries and Birmingham area.

[AMModels]

Just now, Pluto said:

Looking at the suggested costs for a wide and/or narrow Rochdale Canal, it was anticipated that a narrow canal would cost around one third less than a wide one, the 1792 estimates being £350,000 against £234,000. The decision was influenced by what sort of cargoes would be carried, and whether narrow or wide boats would be better, as well as overall cost. Wide boats would have been much more useful on northern waterways, to maximise stability on boats carrying heavy baled goods for the textile industry, while narrowboats would be fine for the much lighter goods, such as crockery and smallware, from the Potteries and Birmingham area.

Thanks thats great, I can imagine the BCN finding it useful as well for coal and ores, but I suppose the large wolverhampton level meant they could use trains of boats for the mostly local traffic so a wider lock system wouldnt have helped that much.

 

[David Mack]

48 minutes ago, AMModels said:

Thanks thats great, I can imagine the BCN finding it useful as well for coal and ores, but I suppose the large wolverhampton level meant they could use trains of boats for the mostly local traffic so a wider lock system wouldnt have helped that much.

 

The large Wolverhampton level came later. The original Birmingham Canal was built to  connect Birmingham to the mines at Wednesbury, with 6 locks over the original summit, and to connect to the rest of the emerging canal system via the Staffs and Worcs which was being built as a narrow canal. So wide was never really an option.

And trains of boats may make sense with tugs. But would it have worked with horses?

 

Edited May 24, 2017 by David Mack

[AMModels]

49 minutes ago, David Mack said:

The large Wolverhampton level came later. The original Birmingham Canal was built to  connect Birmingham to the mines at Wednesbury, with 6 locks over the original summit, and to connect to the rest of the emerging canal system via the Staffs and Worcs which was being built as a narrow canal. So wide was never really an option.

And trains of boats may make sense with tugs. But would it have worked with horses?

 

Good question, it didnt get put in to practice as far as I am aware it tended to be a one horse one boat deal or at least it did after engines came into being, steam tugs never came to the BCN according to “The Steam Narrow Boat” chapter from C.P. and C.R Weaver’s  book “Steam on Canals” or the BCN society.

[MoominPapa]

Another bit of history, at South Mill Lock.

the text says:

THE LEE CONSERVANCY BOARD

   STORT NAVIGATION

THE 12 INCHES RANGE MARKED ON THIS PLATE

DENOTES THE WORKING HEAD

FOR THIS MILL AS ARRANGED BY AGREEMENT

MADE AND DATED JULY 26 1910

BETWEEN THE OWNER OF THIS MILL

AND THE LEE CONSERVANCY BOARD

Edited May 24, 2017 by MoominPapa

[magpie patrick]

6 hours ago, AMModels said:

Did anyone ever cost the differential between narrow canals and wider ones? I think it would definitely have changed the whole feel of canals if boats had been of a wider build. 

 

Further to Pluto's answer, "it depends"...

The Grand Union found that widening the locks and even the bridges was only the half of it. Whilst retrofitting wide beam will always be messy it isn't as simple as "twice as much please". On sidelong ground the cut and fill is disproportionately bigger, on tight curves the alignment is more difficult.  It is difficult to imagine how Combe Hay locks on the coal canal could have been built wide for example, a different route would have been chosen. 

And bigger tunnels are very much more expensive. Wide beam at Standedge anyone? 

[magpie patrick]

8 hours ago, MoominPapa said:

Another bit of history, at South Mill Lock.

the text says:

THE LEE CONSERVANCY BOARD

   STORT NAVIGATION

THE 12 INCHES RANGE MARKED ON THIS PLATE

DENOTES THE WORKING HEAD

FOR THIS MILL AS ARRANGED BY AGREEMENT

MADE AND DATED JULY 26 1910

BETWEEN THE OWNER OF THIS MILL

AND THE LEE CONSERVANCY BOARD

I seem to recall seeing those, although it's years since i last saw the Stort. Aside from the obvious implication for levels who was it informing? Why an upper mark? Did the Lee Conservancy run the Stort by 1910 or were they just responsible for water management? 

[Derek R.]

I would hazard a guess that the metal plate gave the mill owner a clear indication when to approach the Lee & Stort conservators of a breach in their contracted water supply! A bit like the Plimsole line of shipping.

[MoominPapa]

2 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

I seem to recall seeing those, although it's years since i last saw the Stort. Aside from the obvious implication for levels who was it informing? Why an upper mark? Did the Lee Conservancy run the Stort by 1910 or were they just responsible for water management? 

This one is below the lock, which I guess explains the upper mark: the higher the water level in the lower pound, the smaller the head for the mill. I guess there is/was a similar plate above the lock, but I didn't look.

 

MP.

 

Edited May 25, 2017 by MoominPapa

[Pluto]

10 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

Further to Pluto's answer, "it depends"...

The Grand Union found that widening the locks and even the bridges was only the half of it. Whilst retrofitting wide beam will always be messy it isn't as simple as "twice as much please". On sidelong ground the cut and fill is disproportionately bigger, on tight curves the alignment is more difficult.  It is difficult to imagine how Combe Hay locks on the coal canal could have been built wide for example, a different route would have been chosen. 

And bigger tunnels are very much more expensive. Wide beam at Standedge anyone? 

The increase in cost of a wide canal was definitely mostly related to the additional land needed. There would be little additional cost for locks, a little more perhaps for bridges, embankments and culverts, and it was tunnels and, to some extent aqueducts, which would have cost considerably more. Water supply was virtually the same as this was dependent on tonnage carried. Canals were designed for a specific annual tonnage of goods to be carried, so half the number of wide boats would be needed, compared to narrowboats, and with wide locks using around twice as much water as narrow, the actual requirement would be very similar.

[magpie patrick]

1 hour ago, Pluto said:

The increase in cost of a wide canal was definitely mostly related to the additional land needed. There would be little additional cost for locks, a little more perhaps for bridges, embankments and culverts, and it was tunnels and, to some extent aqueducts, which would have cost considerably more. Water supply was virtually the same as this was dependent on tonnage carried. Canals were designed for a specific annual tonnage of goods to be carried, so half the number of wide boats would be needed, compared to narrowboats, and with wide locks using around twice as much water as narrow, the actual requirement would be very similar.

Interesting, and still much the case in a modern context (which I use quite a lot). Land aquisition isn't proportionally more expensive, but it does go up with width, whereas the cost of a concrete lock is such that if in doubt build it wide and long because the costs vary so little. bridges get more expensive if the overall width (including towpath) goes beyond about 5 metres as this precludes off-site fabrication. 

The cost of a lock chamber doesn't vary that much with depth either, but long approach cuttings or embankments get expensive. 

We try and avoid aqueducts and tunnels if at all possible!

[Tim Lewis]

On 5/24/2017 at 21:57, MoominPapa said:

Another bit of history, at South Mill Lock.

the text says:

THE LEE CONSERVANCY BOARD

   STORT NAVIGATION

THE 12 INCHES RANGE MARKED ON THIS PLATE

DENOTES THE WORKING HEAD

FOR THIS MILL AS ARRANGED BY AGREEMENT

MADE AND DATED JULY 26 1910

BETWEEN THE OWNER OF THIS MILL

AND THE LEE CONSERVANCY BOARD

 

Some mill plaque info here:

 

http://www.leeandstort.co.uk/Tednambury Lock.htm

 

Tim