Guilsfield Arm

[Heartland]

The talk about sizes of boat and the variations in lock width is apt when the Guilsfield Arm is considered. The Montgomeryshire Canal was built to handle craft up to the dimensions 73ft 9in by 6ft 11 inches. The Ellesmere to which was linked was 72ft 6in by 6ft 10 in, with the exception of the 8.75 miles from Chester to Ellesmere Port where boats up to 74ft 1in by 14ft 3in might pass. In contrast the Guilsfield Arm of the Montgomeryshre is narrower  and the bridges on this short level section are also narrower. Whilst there was trade in both coal and limestone along this branch, normal sized craft might have found it a challenge if weeds encroached upon it.   

[magpie patrick]

I will admit I've never studied the Guildsfield arm in detail. Are the bridges narrower than 6 feet 11 inches? 

There weren't many "standard" boat types that were so narrow, the only ones I can think of were tub boats and starvationers. (And log boats, but I think they were a bit earlier!  ) 

[Laurence Hogg]

Shropshire Union R&C Co "Trench" boats would have passed without problem, but are these dimensions accurate? Many a GU boat been up the Llangollen at 7ft 1/2".

[magpie patrick]

18 minutes ago, Laurence Hogg said:

Shropshire Union R&C Co "Trench" boats would have passed without problem, but are these dimensions accurate? Many a GU boat been up the Llangollen at 7ft 1/2".

I don't want to drag the discussion too far off course but I think there is a difference between what a navigation was built for and what would physically fit. I suspect many carrying fleets "maxed" vessel sizes for the waterways they intended to navigate. I'd be surprised if a lock built for a 6 ft 10 in boat wasn't at least 7 ft 2 in wide, and probably more to allow for movement of both chamber and boat.

[Pluto]

48 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

I don't want to drag the discussion too far off course but I think there is a difference between what a navigation was built for and what would physically fit. I suspect many carrying fleets "maxed" vessel sizes for the waterways they intended to navigate. I'd be surprised if a lock built for a 6 ft 10 in boat wasn't at least 7 ft 2 in wide, and probably more to allow for movement of both chamber and boat.

Measurement had not really been standardised at the time canals were built, so that too would influence the actual dimensions, probably to increase them to ensure that boats made by carpenters with non-standard measuring equipment would fit. Trench boats are a little bit of a red herring, as the canal was originally built for tub boats. On accessibiity today, subsidence and lock wall movement will have had an effect on the size of boat which can use a particular lock, and this could well have changed over time.

On the wide/narrow discussion, the following request to committee members meeting Brindley was written by John Hustler, the chairman of the L&LC, when Brindley was reporting on the canal's proposed route in 1768:

…and secondly to influence Brindley as much as possible in favour of the large canal, as I have the greatest reason to suspect that he has been and will be biased as much as possible by the principal proprietors of the Staffordshire Navigation and particularly by the Duke of Bridgewater to give in his report in favour of the narrow canal and narrow boats, in order that theirs may communicate with it and you find will have some plausible reason to offer in favour of it, which I hope much our gentlemen will not pay regard to, as it would in a great degree be giving away or neglecting the great advantage our situation has over theirs with regard to a thoroughfare betwixt the two seas, the cheapness of conveyance and the more general usefulness of the large wide boats, theirs not being capable of carrying many things of light bulky quality, which would furnish great business upon ours…

[nebulae]

I have never walked the length of the \Guilsfield arm,only walked a couple of short lengths. It looked a bit of a scramble when I last visited the junction area. From memory,there are two bridges,apart from the infilled bridge by the junction with the main line. Might pop over this weekend with a tape and see if I can get a measurement. Considering the scale of the task,clerks of works must have struggled to get consistency from the various workmen spread along the length of the construction site. Most of the CofW probably had to walk and scramble between work sites.

[magpie patrick]

11 hours ago, nebulae said:

I have never walked the length of the \Guilsfield arm,only walked a couple of short lengths. It looked a bit of a scramble when I last visited the junction area. From memory,there are two bridges,apart from the infilled bridge by the junction with the main line. Might pop over this weekend with a tape and see if I can get a measurement. Considering the scale of the task,clerks of works must have struggled to get consistency from the various workmen spread along the length of the construction site. Most of the CofW probably had to walk and scramble between work sites.

If you do, please come back and report in! I'm fascinated to know what makes the Guildsfield Arm narrower. Heartland is a very respected canal historian, and if he says it is narrower I believe him, but I'm curious as to what makes it so!

[Heartland]

A measurement would be appreciated, the actual bridge holes are probably up to the required dimensions, but the channel, itself appears narrower.

Two of the bridges 1 and 3 have been dropped for road improvement, but 2, 4 and 5 remain.

There is a clear narrowing of the waterway from the Junction to the site of the first bridge.

Opposite this the canal is still in water and appears to be a water source for the main canal. From the junction the arm acts a bypass weir for the top lock.

At bridge 5 the line of canal to bridge 4 is evidently narrower. Bridge 5 appears to be a normal bridge, though perhaps a little smaller than others on the Montgomery- of Dadford engineering expertise, rather than George W Buck- it would seem.

The four attached images show (1) the canal arm at the Junction (2) the canal west of Bridge 1. (3) the canal arm east of bridge 5 and (4) Bridge 5

 

Edited May 30, 2017 by Heartland

[nebulae]

Sorry,did not manage to get to Guilsfield over the weekend and off on the boat for 5 weeks. Will measure it when I get back. Photo number 3 shows why I have never waked the arm. It is reputed to be a nature reserve now.Dont know who controls it,although I believe it still belongs to CaRT.

[Heartland]

I also wondered about the water supply aspect. The first ordnance survey 1884 for Montgomery shows  water mill at Ceunant where a mill pool provides water along a mill stream to the mill, but after there the map does not show the route, but it is possible that stream fed the arm

[nebulae]

Sorry I have not come back before. Been on the boat for a few weeks. The entrance to the Guilsfield Arm is obstructed by a large pipe. Bridge No1 has been eliminated,with a short length of canal each side. There is no restriction in width that can be seen now. Bridge No2 is in good condition,has one origional cast iron number and one new CaRT number. I was unable to check width without a ladder to get to the far side. The bridge appears to be identical to bridge No5 in every detail. Bridge No3 has been destroyed and the road flattened. Bridge No4 has been bypassed by a causway,It is in good condition and has one cast iron number and one new Cart number. I could not measure width,as it is concreted level with the towpath. Bridge No5 is in good condition(AS are 2 and 4) has a cast iron number on one side and a new Cart number on the other side. The width of the navigation between the coping stones under the bridge and the far side of the structure is 11 feet to 11ft4ins. The coping stones are set out slightly from the wall underneath. This may be origional,or ground pressure may have moved them out slightly. The wall underneath the coping is in good condition and is upright. As an aside,the bed of the canal is in good condition apart from vegetation. The towpath is in generaly good condition,apart from a section between bridge 4 and 5,which is almost impassable.

[nebulae]

The stream which passes close to the terminal basin could possibly have had a wier to bring its level up to a point where it could feed the canal. There is some evidence of a pipe in the corner of the basin. If the basin is about the size it was when the canal was in trade,it must have been tight to wind a full length boat.

[Graham Davis]

Was it built to be navigable? I'm sure I've read somewhere that it was just a water supply channel?

[nebulae]

If I may quote Steven Hughes "The Archeology of the Montgomeryshire Canal".   " This branch canal terminates three hundred meters before Guilsfield Village........A triangular pool  remains alongside the Guilsfield Brook from which this canal may origionally have drawn water. A BRICK WHARF WALL REMAINS TO THE NORTH ON WHICH STAND A CORRUGATED_IRON STORE AND A SMALL WAREHOUSE OF THE LATER NINETEENTH CENTURY"   The waterway is certainly as wide and as deep as the rest of the Monty.  I assume that the presence of warehouses at the terminal basin means that boats loaded at the basin. These wharf buildings are now a very nice house. I am sure I have read that timber was an important cargo for this wharf.

[magpie patrick]

8 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

Was it built to be navigable? I'm sure I've read somewhere that it was just a water supply channel?

I've always believed it was intended to be navigable, but hybrid water supply/navigation channels did occur, where a village got a branch and a basin by virtue of them being on the water supply route. Because the traffic on these would be expected to be low, the channel might be fine for water supply but only just adequate for navigation. The branch to Engine Wood on the Coal Canal was only wide enough for one boat for example. 

If I may digress the Welford Arm of the Leicester Section is something of a hybrid, I'm not sure a wharf on the Turnpike would have justified a branch (especially one with a lock) if it wasn't also the supply from Welford Reservoir. 

[Derek R.]

The triangular basin appears to have a corrugated barn of sorts still extant. Could it be the same as mentioned in Nebulaes' post? The Navigation Inn looks to be a private residence today.

http://tinyurl.com/y92g2yzf

http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17&lat=52.7057&lon=-3.1425&layers=6&b=1

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

On 28/05/2017 at 17:15, Heartland said:

The talk about sizes of boat and the variations in lock width is apt when the Guilsfield Arm is considered. The Montgomeryshire Canal was built to handle craft up to the dimensions 73ft 9in by 6ft 11 inches. The Ellesmere to which was linked was 72ft 6in by 6ft 10 in, with the exception of the 8.75 miles from Chester to Ellesmere Port where boats up to 74ft 1in by 14ft 3in might pass. In contrast the Guilsfield Arm of the Montgomeryshre is narrower  and the bridges on this short level section are also narrower. Whilst there was trade in both coal and limestone along this branch, normal sized craft might have found it a challenge if weeds encroached upon it.   

I am just reading about this in a very interesting book "The Shropie Fly Boats" I think 6' 4" was mentioned 

[nebulae]

Yes,the corrugated store and the brick warehouse have been joined together and are now a very nice house. The Inn is also now a house.  I cant really understand why there would be any restriction on boat width on the Guilsfield Branch. The width and depth is at least as good as the Caldon Canal,for instance.  As I have confirmed,bridge width allows a boat of 7ft plus to pass and there are no locks on the branch. Any restriction will be the locks on the Montgomery Canal main line?

[Derek R.]

Indeed, most of the canals built around Ironbridge and Ketley were tub boat canals with levels joined by inclined planes (the tub boats holding 5 - 8 tons each), none of which were available to narrow boats. The Shrewsbury Canal had eleven locks beginning at Trench from the base of the inclined plane there, which was the limit for even the 6' 4" boats, the locks being 81' long by 6' 7" in width, these would take specially built Shroppie boats, though not many were made. The locks had mitred top gates and a lifted guillotine gate at the lower end taking the Shrewsbury Canal down 79' down to the level of the Weald Moors. The Shrewsbury Canal was widened from its tub boat dimensions in 1835 to connect with the Birmingham and Liverpool Junction Canal by means of the Newport branch, but all cargoes beyond the Trench Inclined plane had to be transhipped into/from tubs.

'British Canals an illustrated history' by Charles Hadfield, 'The Canals of Shropshire' by Richard Morriss, & 'Waterways of East Shropshire' by Neil Clarke.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Derek R.
Added text

[magpie patrick]

4 hours ago, nebulae said:

Yes,the corrugated store and the brick warehouse have been joined together and are now a very nice house. The Inn is also now a house.  I cant really understand why there would be any restriction on boat width on the Guilsfield Branch. The width and depth is at least as good as the Caldon Canal,for instance.  As I have confirmed,bridge width allows a boat of 7ft plus to pass and there are no locks on the branch. Any restriction will be the locks on the Montgomery Canal main line?

Bradshaw 1904 gives the Montgomery Canal eastern and western branches (why? they were almost due north and south!) as 6 foot 10 inches but the Ellesmere Canal from Hurleston to Carreghofa as 6 foot 9 inches. Even CRT don't claim it's THAT narrow!

These were "narrow" locks even by narrow lock standards, but not so narrow as to be notable like the Shrewsbury, and as you say, there doesn't seem to be anything making the Guildsfield Arm even narrower

[Heartland]

The Eastern and Western Branches of the Montgomery is so named because there were two separate companies. The Eastern Branch was the original canal from Carreghofa to Garthmyl (Garth Mill as is suggested by the tithe). The extension from Garthmyl to Newtown was made for the Western Branch company. 

[magpie patrick]

1 hour ago, Heartland said:

The Eastern and Western Branches of the Montgomery is so named because there were two separate companies. The Eastern Branch was the original canal from Carreghofa to Garthmyl (Garth Mill as is suggested by the tithe). The extension from Garthmyl to Newtown was made for the Western Branch company. 

Whoever did the naming of the companies needed to get their compass adjusted!

 

[ditchcrawler]

On 24/07/2017 at 11:22, ditchcrawler said:

I am just reading about this in a very interesting book "The Shropie Fly Boats" I think 6' 4" was mentioned 

Can't edit it but looks as if I got my canals muddled up

[Heartland]

I believe, regarding the nomenclature, that Newtown is west of Garthmyl, whether one considers south west, or not, it is still on the west side and the original may well be north east of Garthmyl, it is still on the east side of the new canal route. South would be Llandridnod Wells- now there is a thought a canal to Llandridnod!

[nebulae]

Just a note to help anyone exploring the Guilsfield Branch.  Steven Hughes book states that the terminal basin is 300metres from Guilsfield. This is incorrect. It is nearly a mile.The turning to the basin is easily missed and there is no parking. Take the next turning go over the bridge and there is plenty of parking by the side of the road.