magpie patrick

Not at all, although some of his paintings are a bit Flatford or Dedham

Painting's are interesting - when you have a photo until fairly recently the working assumption was that the depiction was accurate. If something didn't make sense one couldn't deny it existed, one had to explain it. Paintings are slightly different, and the more one can determine how accurate they are the more one can learn. The picture of the pair of narrow locks is almost certainly a fictional location, so we can't learn much, but the artist has included bits from a lot of different places. The high bridge in the background could be from the Stroudwater, the pair of narrow locks could be based on Hillmorton, but with single gates like Farmers Bridge, the bywash is certainly similar to Farmers Bridge, but they were never paired. Constable's pictures are so accurate that canal historians can refer to them, the detail we know about is accurate so we can conclude the rest is, to the extent we can learn about things that didn't make it to the age of photography, his skies are so realistic that meteorologists study them. although I'm unclear how an 18th century cloud differs from a 21st century cloud! If the Carlisle canal pictures are accurate we can learn things about a canal that never made it into the era of photography, but to do that one needs to compare what we do know with what's in the picture So from an artistic perspective no it doesn't really matter, from an historians it does. As for Monet, I love his work, which was, I think, partly in response to photography being able to outdo a painting for realism. I do wonder though how he could design the garden if he couldn't imagine the scene... I must be missing something!

With regard to the little ships, these boats were of varying degrees of seaworthiness (some were actually rather bigger ships) but many were grossly overloaded, albeit understandably. I recall a statement from one owner (I can't remember the source) that "she sleeps 8 but we'll get more than that on" and he came back with somewhere round 100 men. In the circumstances it wouldn't have been that surprising if we'd lost over half the fleet - we didn't

Thanks Alan, yes in remembering to get the category the right way round I'd forgotten than MCA categories don't even get beyond partially smooth waters The do have regulations for operating a commercial boat beyond the partially smooth waters limit (but inside UK waters) so yes thay can stop a Dunkirk Little Ship taking fare oaying passengers to sea, although not if it's leaving Dunkirk...

A bit sensationalist (but then it is the Mail) I am not at all surprised that some of the little ships are not compliant with modern MCA regulations, indeed I'd be surprised if any of the originals comply I am rather more surprised that we didn't suffer heavy losses in the operation given that these boats were known at the time to be pushing the limits in a time of extreme need. Nevertheless the fact that we got away with it then isn't a good reason to risk lives now. The worst that the MCA will do is stop them operating commercial short sea cruises, in effect in category D waters, the MCA arent going to say these boats can't float in harbour, or be used as private boats, or be used inland on category A or B waters where the wave height is considerably less. The MCA don't tell anyone to scrap anything...

Agreed, the problem is that, if the location of the lock gates in the picture is to be accepted as accurate, this fast packet boat is in the entrance lock from the Solway Firth! But that doesn't make sense as Carlisle is about 8 miles away from the entrance lock, yet probably less than a mile away in the painting.

More riches! That view could conceivably be from Port Carlisle, between the two entrance locks (two in succession, not two side by side) the higher of which lifted the canal above the highest tide ever recorded. The two locks had a sharp bend between them, although that would leave the question of why two horses are going hell for leather when the boat (two boats - what's that about?) has only just left the lower lock... Looking at this one again, on a big screen rather than the phone, the bywash and side pond look very "Farmers Bridge" but the scenery does not! From memory, Farmers Bridge couldn't be duplicated as there was no room - they were built though existing urban development and the canal always was very tight.

I like it too but where is it supposed to be? Narrow locks, paired, single bottom gates on opposing sides - doesn't compute. The bridge in the background is impressively high too!

Well, some boats (Neath Canal among others) were double ended - bow at both ends. This one has a stern at both ends....

I'm told that Red Bull and Vodka has a startling effect as the stimulant fights with the intoxicant - I'm teetotal so I wouldn't know!

That's a moot point that would keep the lawyers busy - it doesn't say railway property, it says... or if any person shall wilfully trespass upon any railway, or any of the stations or other works or premises connected therewith To me (and I have some experience) this doesn't mean anything the railway owns, it means anything connected with "the railway", which means what? If parliament had wanted to mean land owned by they could have said so, but presumably they saw the risk in all the adhoc bits of land that railways did (and still do) own. The distinction of "the railway" and "stations..." would suggest parliament meant the permanent way and associated works.

This could get interesting.... First, I wonder on what basis Network Rail claim ownership of both sides - I'm not saying they don't as I haven't checked, but I'd be surprised if they do - If they are claiming ownership of the western bank on the basis that their predecessors bought the land for the railway, it's more likely C&RT own the bank bewteen the canal and the stream (not that this improves things much) as successors to the Oxford Canal Company Second, there is a right of navigation on the stream - that's why there is a carefully crafted gap in the boom below Isis Lock, to allow small vessels though - this doesn't give a right to moor but it complicates enforcement Third, I wonder who put NR up to this? They normally can't be bothered about what goes on on land that is safely distant from their operations and of no value for development (which would describe the strip between the canal and the stream). Are they just covering themselves for the day Oxford City Council get nasty with the boaters? Edited to add - "Trespassers will be prosecuted" is a statement with no legal weight behind it at all, at least in England and Wales

The Avon Ring is doable in a week, and certainly in 10 days, if you have only one boat, but you have four - also 10 nights is NINE full days plus a half day (ish at the start) plus an hour on the last morning. The first issue you have is that your days are longer with four boats - they start when the first boat leaves and end when the last boat arrives wherever you are going, and if you want to moor all four up in reasonable close proximity you can't afford to be late getting there. Even if everything goes smoothly there could be an hour between arrival of the first boat at the chosen pub and arrival of the last - and you convoy may get broken if there is a mishap. In theory on the Avon Ring there are more locks you can share, but of course this only works up to a point, you have four boats they still won't all fit in one lock, and if there is a solo boat in front of you... does one of your's share with them? do you stick to two pairs...? Nine full days and four boats, I'd stick to the Stourport Ring myself

I remember when the Rochdale Nine being empty was pretty much the norm... you had to pay a ludicrous sum (£25?) for the privilege of doing battle with recalcitrant lock gear and pounds that were either empty or too full... £25 (I think) at mid 1980's prices for one mile and nine locks