magpie patrick

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!

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

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? 😉🙃

Another Liverpool 65 one - not entirely appropriate....

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

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?

Is that guy casually leaning on the prop shaft? 😳

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?

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

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?

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.

Just to add, licence revenue (not the same thing as individual licence fees) would have to increase by 67% to replace the funding that will be lost - given that some give up this suggests fees would probably have to at least double to plug the gap

That isn't quite true, BW certainly did care and looked for ways to manage whilst spending less money*, aware of the bean counters at HMG - they also had the ability to go cap in hand if something did go badly wrong, and would get at least partially bailed out. CRT lost that option and have also now had their funding severely restricted *whether their methods were effective is another matter.

This ^^^^^ We need to stop thinking that canal closures, even on busy routes, are unthinkable - if money is short, it will happen. I'd say the most vulnerable are big embankments and tunnels (aqueducts less so but they often have big embankments on their approaches) - followed not far behind by big cuttings. A large failure on one of these will close the canal indefinitely and almost without warning. Thinking about it I would add Marple locks - failure rate is one every few years at a couple of million quid every time. I have reports on my shelves from the 50s and 60s that look at permanent closure of some through routes including Harecastle Tunnel Even though I used lock gates as an example, they are not actually the weak spot they seem, the limiting factor at the moment is the capacity to build them, certainly Bradley are working flat out, and I suspect Stanley Ferry are too, but capacity simply means waiting for new gates not them never being built. Another big problem is that reliability will be much reduced, and that is critical for the hire boat industry and canal side businesses dependent upon the leisure side of boating. Before maintenance was such an issue, we used to reckon as a rule of thumb that the leisure trade needed the canal to withstand the 1 in 10 year drought*, that is. so long as the failure rate was less than a 10% probability it would cope, if failure rate, any failure, starts to exceed 1 in 10, that is a 10% chance that holidays will be disrupted or cancelled, it will be very bad news. The public may be even more fickle now as there are more alternatives. *This gave concern on the Rochdale where the water supply was only up to the 1 in 3 year drought. In practice usage has not been as forecast so this hasn't been the issue we thought it would be, and our understanding of water management and supply has improved so we were probably being unduly pessimistic

And when UFN meant "years" not "we don't know but probably not very long" The Bridgwater and Taunton Canal is probably the best (or worst) example. The wooden props in the Albert Street Cutting have become unsafe, and the canal closed though them, now for 2 or 3 years. This is probably one of the most popular bits of the canal both for walkers and boaters (albeit canoes) but the repairs have just never been done.

At the risk of becoming a pariah I concur I recently surveyed the Neath Canal at Resolven - 34 year old gates that have fallen apart. You simply cannot keep stretching resources indefinitely, things cannot be continually patched. 34 years old is only 9 years beyond design life and 5 years beyond what can be eked out with care, if available maintenance funds are halved then lock gates will fail and no replacements will be available. And that's before we have structural failures! I fear that we either pay up or canals will close Neath Canal falling apart

Ahem... I signed off on that! Well, I reviewed it and gave comments - I was okay with the two-rise. Cut fill balance, and by the time the decision was made we knew there'd be a marina above it which would screw the water balance anyway. I was less happy with the square approaches and recommended 45 degree fendering as a minimum, but that didn't happen. To add - the hydraulic balance is also affected by the side ponds at Hanbury

If they're not far enough apart for a boat to fit between them then presumably the gates faced in opposite directions. I think it's unlikely that they were routinely closed and sealed as the levels would hardly ever match if left to chance. Were they perhaps closed at night? Or closed but with a paddle open? Both would provide protection in the event of a sudden large scale leak or burst.

Stop it! 😮 I'll be searching on websites for these whilst my credit card tries to go into hiding...