Jump to content

magpie patrick

ModeratorDonate to Canal World
  • Posts

    8,621
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by magpie patrick

  1. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  2. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  3. I went a bit further and turned at the incinerator - I knew Ripple wouldn't fit the locks (she was 62 foot) but I hadn't factored in that canals with short locks have short winding holes too
  4. This ^^^^ And easy enough to do in error even if you know what you're talking about - a colleague of several years ago based his bid for consultancy work in Dublin on a similar bid he'd done in Stockholm - after many checks to make sure there were no references to Swedish places and policies he sent the bid out, with the price in Króna....
  5. As Matty said, and the closer you get to Froghall the better it gets In the 1960s BW offered to maintain and repair the canal as far as Hazlehurst locks on condition the canal society drop their campaign for restoration to Froghall - Ben Fradley, the then chairman of the canal society, is alleged to have replied "we are not being shown to the garden gate and then being barred from entering the garden"
  6. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  7. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  8. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  9. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  10. Seconded - that is going to get knocked off even moving to the water point or the diesel berth. You won't be able to take it off if the fire is lit, and moving with it on is a hazard to other boaters as well as locksides, bridges etc. Sorry, but it needs to go!
  11. Thank you! I'd forgotten that 65 was at Burnley not Liverpool (which I think was 68?) and didn't know there had been satellite sites
  12. I haven't checked but I assume a cutting on this scale is one of the 1830s improvements? Could the original route be reopened instead? 😉🙃
  13. Another Liverpool 65 one - not entirely appropriate....
  14. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  15. Thanks Pluto - I'm sure if I read one of your books I'll get the answer, but what was the original configuration on the Leigh Branch? Bradshaw 1904 has one at Poolstick, two at Dover and one at Plank Lane, which is what is shown on my plan, you suggest that by the 1920s this had changed (I don't have a later Bradshaw to hand to check) but what did it start as? The map is headed for a place in my personal library btw
  16. Very informative - if only all videos could be that concise! Thanks for that - I realise it's not you that said it. Does the author really think that a cutting should be reopened in a state where it is predictable that it will slide down on a passing boater? IF we were talking about coal to keep the lights on in Coventry then that risk might just about have been acceptable in the 1930s, but leisure boaters? Now?
  17. Is that guy casually leaning on the prop shaft? 😳
  18. Been a while since I posted one of these... Found amongst MtE's books, I've posted similar but not identical maps before, they were flat sheets, this is bound, and there are significant detail differences too. The map gives no info on who published it - there is a credit to the "Canal Office, Liverpool" but no reference to whether this was the L&L co or the BTC. The map shows four locks on the Leigh Branch which must date it to some extent. I find the long profile including the reservoirs fascinating. Anyone got any thoughts on date and provenance?
  19. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  20. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  21. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  22. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  23. Others may know better but I don't know that CRT did get extra dosh - funding was given to businesses and residents for "uninsured losses" and "recovery" The failure was in 2019 and the works won't be completed until 2025, so the costs are spread over several years
  24. I concur with @Pluto - there is a great tendency to simplify history, and related to that a tendency to think of what we have now or of the recent past as being "original" more generally, and as an example of the difficulty in interpretation, below are four photographs of the head of locks 9,10,11 and 12 at Marple, taken earlier this afternoon. Lock 9 has a recess on the offside that looks big enough for a single leaf top gate, lock 10 has one half the size, lock 11 has only the curved rebate to allow the top gate to close, whilst lock 12 has a recess big enough for a gate for most of its height but only half the size at coping level. Did one or more of these locks ever have the gate hinged on the non-towpath side? Are any of these original features? If so (to both questions) which one?
  25. Further to @Plutos comments, and ref: the Coventry Canal and others, there simply wasn't a standard way of doing things, or even a standard performance spec. For example, locks on the Neath Canal only had one ground paddle at the top, and never had top gate paddles, speed was presumably not of the essence - other canals may have regarded speed of operation more highly from the outset. Pluto has done far more research than any of us (probably more than the rest of us put together!) but my suspicion would be that (1) most earlier locks the design was based on what they already knew from nearby navigations (2) once ground paddles were understood gate paddles were not used at the top (with one possible caveat - see below) and (3) two ground paddles at the top was as much about redundancy as it was about speed, and even then may have largely been "other locks have two paddles" - as a general rule if something worked then one didn't fiddle with it. Caveat - some locks on the main system only ever had one top ground paddle, notably the T&M east of Stone, and Marple Locks - Pluto and I have walked up Marple Locks looking for evidence or otherwise for top gate paddles when new, but there is none. On the T&M locks it would seem odd to have some locks with two top paddles and some with only one, so my suspicion is that those locks with only one top ground did have top gate paddles, but is is only a supposition. At some point the T&M standardised on two top ground paddles as the newer locks at Meaford have this whilst the top lock has only one.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.