Heartland

There was a tug it appears- the HERON as seen in this 1930's shot

The commitment for towpath improvement by the CRT appears to be biased towards the cyclist, which is beneficial for that group of waterway users, but creating a dis-advantage for other users as cycling speed is improved. Should there be lanes for cyclists and walkers? In places where towpath bridges restrict the width and the towpath is narrow the current CRT code applies (although, sadly, ignored by the rogue cyclists), yet there are many examples where a clear cycling lane could be put in force. It seems SUSTRANS has tried to bring in their network through economy and whilst the benefits to all cyclists must be praised, little provision has been made to restrict, or penalise, the selfish element of this fraternity. Towpath improvement is beneficial to all, I recall trying to organise an RCHS walk along the South Stratford from Wilmcote in the 1990's before that particular towpath was improved. The towpath at one point was so slippy with mud and clay, and parts not a path but a slide into the water, that the trip had to be changed to avoid this section

This attached image is a 1953 view of Admiral setting off from the Griff Arm for Banbury

Thanks for that, the question now is captioning error? This image is quoted as near Kingswood

It is often a topic of conversation to follow boat origins. There was a boat called Water Wanderer that could be seen on the canal network such as the Grand Union, called the Water Wanderer, does anybody know of the history?

I have noted that the Montgomeryshire Canal through to Welshpool and beyond has potential of being a worthwhile walk to do. Improvement of the towing path has opened up a scenic walk. There is also a lot to see that includes canal houses, innovative lock gear, lift bridges (old and new) and there are parts where the boats still cannot go. There are elements of industrial archeology such as canal side limekilns that are a reminder of why this waterway was constructed.

The use of bicycles on the canal towpath has been a practice carried on by some people long before BW chose to promote it. Though some canal companies chose to prohibit it they were often used by staff to get to work on others. Whether they rode their bikes on the towpath, and just wheeled them, is another matter, though. It could be a useful practice that cyclists could be restricted to specific lanes on the towpath, if wide enough, but then such infrastructure would be at a cost. From another viewpoint some towpaths have been improved for the cyclist and this has been beneficial to all towpath users

Cycling on towpaths is an issue that definitely needs a solution. Some paths are designated as cycleways, but CRT tell me there is a code of conduct where pedestrians have the right of way, If that is the case and cyclists who fail to slow down can be taken to task, but can they be prosecuted? It seems there is a hard core of individuals who chose to cycle anywhere including footpaths and city areas which are pedestrian areas. It never ceases to amaze me that the towpath at Brindley Place, where the retail establishments line the waterway is considered place for cyclist to force their way through the many walkers. CRT appear oblivious to the problem and even allow a cycle hire faciity from a boat in a basin next to the Sea Life Centre. The worst aspect of rogue cycling are the Deliveroo people who choose pedestrian routes to get through Birmingham regardless of whom they annoy or hurt.

Yes, and the fisherman will retain a good fishing place, so from their perspective the flash is better left alone and there is the ecological factors as well. Yet boatyards and moorings are required and so there can only be a set of mixed opinions on this. My recollection of boating past here, at the normal speed and slowing down for the fishermen, as one does, was to encounter a fisherman who appeared to dislike any boat passing his spot. Hiding within his little tent he would take aim at passing boaters with his bait catapult and the missiles he used tended to be stones. In my case his missile shattered a cup of coffee on the cabin roof!

Any development that benefits boats using the canal can only be supported. A marina has many of the good points such as the provision of services, boat mooring as well as improving the existing site.

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

Laurence Hogg has noted in the past the Coggins boat that had a motor attachment. Later British Waterways had a motor that attached to a butty. This short craft was called Anne and it was photographed in 1959. Does anybody know the result of the trials.

It would appear Clarke made steam engines as well a the boats themselves

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

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.

In addition to hollowed out logs, has any thought been given to rafts for the moving of goods along rivers.

Looking at lock sizes and widths is clearly a complicated study. The factors that determined the size included cost of construction. It has been inferred by Mike Clarke that as BCN locks were 7ft width, it was a logical progression of the wider and earlier river locks that handled the flats and keels and perhaps leading onto a a hypothesis that crafts adapted to the narrower canals were designed to fit into Northern Canal locks, side by side. The BCN has to be taken with the Staffordshire & Worcestershire/ Trent & Mersey which were also narrow canals and only at their extremities had wider locks. These were all Brindley Canals and it was his choice to recommend it. An alternate viewpoint could include the point that there was no real guidelines as the canals were first made and local factors influenced the size of the locks. For the Brindley Canals the extent of the carriage, that is local and long distance, was suited by local dimensions of 7ft x 70ft and where local trade on a lock less section was as the Wolverhampton Level of the BCN, the length and perhaps width of craft might be varied to carry more cargo, which in the case of the Wolverhampton Level was coal. Trade on these Midland canals interfaced with other carriers routes there was usually transhipment of goods into different sized craft, although the narrowboat proved to be quite versatile venturing on to wider waterways and river navigations. As for the River Stort the width of the locks appears to be that which was originally designed. Local demands have often influenced construction. The long turf sided locks on the Kennet had a very specialised type of craft that worked along it. The tub boat canals in East Shropshire had craft that suited the trade. Sir Nigel Gresley's Canal was another isolated section with special craft as had the Frwdd Canal in North Wales. Between Shrewsbury & Pool Quay on the Severn craft were clearly smaller and narrower in order to navigate the narrow and winding river there. Canals that had their width altered after construction started included the Worcester & Birmingham and the Stratford Upon Avon. In fact, Lifford Lock, on the Stratford, was built originally to barge dimensions and had mitred gates.

A GJCC icebreaker would fit with being at Hatton- how many were there?

Well that would explain the Station Boats, because they would easily have gone to Yates. Does anybody know the fate of 71 and 21? The image of 71 is attached- clearly same location.....

Miscaptioning was one of my reasons for the post, yet, it is hard to see the Weavers getting it wrong- here is a view of the sunken boats- there might be chance of identifying the location. In this view there is a bridhe and house.

The attached image appears to show an ice boat in a pound at Hatton. It is of unusual design and comments would be appreciated.

Many enthusiasts are aware of the major restoration that brought the Stratford Upon Avon Canal back into the network. yet there was a period of dereliction under the Great Western Railway and British Railways. According to John Norris the Southern Stratford became un-navigable after the Second Word War. Yet the Weavers took pictures of the basin in December 1950, which showed a number of rotting sunken hulls, but there were also a pair of railway boats, no 71 and 21 which were there and afloat. They had BR (LMS) beside the number indicating they had recently arrived. The question that must be asked was why?

I have not heard of a copy of completed text, nor has anybody in the BCN Society mentioned it. I suspect that the research, though started was never finished. The problem with a volume two, is that probably a volume three might have been required as the history became very complex from 1846.

With the creation of the new vehicle entrance to Wolverhampton Railway Station the access road crosses the site of the demolished former flour mill. With this new work the former basin under the mill that was the truncated section of the original canal that passed under the station appears to have been buried under the new approach works. Was any record kept of the mill basin during the demolition, I wonder. The attached image predates the disastrous fire of 2008

Not being up to that stretch recently, I presume Millfields is on the BCN near Bilston not far from the vast Bilston Steelworks site, now demolished and replaced by industrial units and housing. If that is the case has anybody considered the origin of the name. It was near hear also that Bantock had his boat dock. It was also here in the 19th Century that the Millfield Furnaces existed. Yet the origin of the name is earlier. It is generally believed that, and the is archive evidence to support it, that a stream flowed through here and this was dammed and a millpool created. This pool provided the water to turn two overshot wheels of a corn mill and rolling mill that existed before the canal and was associated with Bilston's enamel industry. The waters then flowed on joining with others to form Bilston Brook that flowed eventually in the River Tame.