magpie patrick

I think if we did that then the L&L might be disqualified as it took over 40 years and was not built on anything like the original line between Parbold and Barrowford. The T&M and the Grand Junction had only minor deviations as far as I'm aware

Who is the blogger doing this - I've enjoyed this one and he's obviously done others so I'd like to look him up.

Just been reading @Plutos excellent book on the Leeds and Liverpool Canal. I've always known this as the longest built by a single company. However Pluto points out that the L&LCco only built 116 of the 127 miles as the length from Wigan Top Lock to Johnsons Hill was built by the Lancaster Canal. For a moment the crown wobbled, but I'm fairly certain that the second longest is well short of 116 miles - I think it's either the Grand Junction or the Trent and Mersey, but both are sub 100 miles... But then, the pedantic alter ego kicked in - The L&L isn't a continuous 116 miles, and the break isn't particularly near either end so one of the others wins that award. If if the L&L is allowed top spot with a main line broken by another canal, should branches be included in the "longest by one company"? And if so who wins then? I think the Caldon and Uttoxeter add around 30 miles to the T&M... Anyone wish to add to the pedantic rambling above? (Suitable foil to my shortest canal thread... 😁)

At 1 hour 17 I need to play this on the TV not the phone! With more evenings in on the health horizon I shall watch it soon. I'm not sure what Nick Sanders did that he couldn't do now, and if there are new restrictions whether these would have made the trip impossible. Most regulations lead to behaviour changes not absolute bans. For example, you can go on the Thames Tideway in a narrow boat, but you need VHF which didn't used to be necessary

There has been a hire boat 8 foot 6 wide, but until fairly recently one modern bridge (the A465 crossing) was on such a tight bend that the longer the boat the narrower it had to be - the 8 foot 6 was based the Brecon side of it and probably never went through it. I've steered a 60 foot by 8 foot 6 boat up from Goytre to Gilwern - it felt like a super tanker and needed a skilled hand to do more than 1mph

Not only is it built for the Mon and Brec it's still there! You won't have any trouble as such on the K&A but I'm not sure why you'd have a slightly wide beam transported there - if it was already there I'd live with it, but I wouldn't import it

They wouldn't - this is how the Montgomery was closed, burst in 1936 and then the act of abandonment in 1944 was justified on the basis there had "been no traffic for some years" BUT there still had to be an act of abandonment. The LMS got away with it because in 1944 no-one cared, even if they knew about it. That scenario is unlikely now - you can't so easily get away with no-one knows and no-one cares. Going back to the original point, where rose off my sick bed to challenge @IanD assertion that Peel weren't obliged to reopen it. They are, or they need to formally close it. They will get a lot of opposition if they try and may not be able to do so. In another thread on here there was a video featuring the Warburton Toll Bridge, which is owned by Peel. They had been charging 12p for the toll, the original toll adapted for decimalisation but not adjusted for inflation. When major repairs were needed they sought and got legislative change to increase the toll to £1 and modernise the payment mechanism. Peel won't just walk away - they won't just throw money at it either, they'll seek a new deal

It is unlikely that there is a provision to refuse the toll if it is offered (obviously subject to any conditions that are lawful) - that's the point of a PUBLIC right of navigation, it can't be arbitrarily obstructed.

Yes "on payment of the appropriate toll" The problem is enforcing it to get the canal repaired - but because Peel are obliged to maintain the canal I would expect that soft power will come into play from various public bodies. "Well, we can help you with xxxx, but it won't look good unless..." It's happened before BTW - the Creams Mill breach on the Manchester Bolton & Bury is being repaired for around £3 million (90 years after it happened!) - it must be one of the most technically challenging repairs ever. It is, however, going to be narrow beam, but that's mainly to reduce the height of the retaining wall as the land falls away very quickly so moving the wall into the hillside has big savings

I did a tineye search, which confirmed this - kept quiet until someone else said it! I think the search said Mr Smeaton's Canal Todmorden or something like that. My suspicion is that the picture is about as accurate as the "London Bus found at North Pole" of 80s Tabloid favour!

Fair point - cryptic clues are not my strong point! Doesn't actually exist I assume? The closest I could think of in reality was Berg on the Gota Kanal

There's a sequence of locks in the background, and possibly a big lake or sea inlet in the background. USA? Canada? Sweden?

OR They would have to seek to be relieved of the obligation to do this - they can't just close it. This is where it gets messy for Peel, what conditions would be applied to such a release, even if it were forthcoming? What would the legal costs be, especially if they had a battle on their hands? As a commercial organisation they would also look at the PR implications - would a land deal elsewhere fall through because they were seen to welch on their obligation here? The PRN is not a cast iron guarantee (see Welches Dam on the Middle Level) but it does hold their feet to the fire.

Why do you keep making this claim? The Bridgewater enabling legislation gave a right of navigation on payment of the appropriate toll (and certain other limited circumstances) - there is no evidence that this has been rescinded, that was normally done with an act of parliament before the days of Transport& Works Act Orders. The 1968 Act does not apply to the Bridgewater. The legal obligation may be difficult to enforce but it exists (except through Runcorn locks which were formally abandoned). You often know more than I do on a subject, on other occasions you have upbriaded others who know less but still argue. On this occasion I doubt you've done your own research and I've actually worked for Peel on the subject of navigation on the Bridgewater Canal. So why do you persist - as I say, if they dragged their heels it would be a battle, but the right of navigation (and thus the obligation keep the canal open) exists.

Found these on a charity stall in Sherborne last week. Not canals other than canals are marked on them. However if you have a dirigible and a time machine they will tell you where you can moor it! Felixstowe wasn't much of a port then presumably - wouldn't fancy all that container traffic so close to an artillery firing zone! I love the clarity at such a small scale - modern maps could learn from it.

It does look possible - If they are ground paddles, the lock is not at Combe Hay Like I say, could be confirmation bias on my part as I'm expecting them to be gate paddles.

Thanks all for the responses to date - I particularly like @Jen-in-Wellies field boundary analysis - not thought of that angle on topography. Just to give a comparison with the vernacular of other locks - below if Grove Top on the Wilts and Berks, even though it is also a narrow lock on a long lost canal it looks completely different, note the sloping ground paddles set back from the edge. This doesn't mean our lock isn't on the W&B, as the locks there varied a lot over the length of canal. West of Chippenham they had single bottom gates for example. I have noted, though, that the balance beam appears to be on the non-towpath side here too - I need to check if that was a W&B thing as well as a Coal Canal one. I think they're gate paddles worked from the footboards - but there may be confirmation bias here as that's what the SCC had and what I would expect to see.

Lovely debate about a phone number - any chance of comments about the marina? For the record, I've had friends have boats there and they have never had any problems, when I visit them it seems a pleasant environment. I don't know any details though as I've never been there for more than a few hours

See the photo below - a narrow lock, taken in the 1880s (probably) with a few notable details. The gentleman in the hat appears to be drawing a paddle even though the bottom gates are open. There is what appears to be a maintenance boat to one side, and one surely distinguishing feature is that the top gate is hinged on the non-towpath side. So, where is it? Before you all say it - although this copy has come from Bath Archives, this picture features in Ken Clew's history of the Somersetshire Coal Canal - where it is captioned Combe Hay Lock - c1880, (Singular - presumably a printing error as Ken Clew of all people knew there was more than one!) and certain details such as the paddle gear and the top gate on the off side match the locks at Combe Hay, but which lock? There were 22 of them, and I can't place it in the flight. No 1 had the junction to the feeder adjacent, nos 5 and 16 had bridges at the tail, and numbers 17, 18 and 19 had the towpath on the left hand side when descending but this was still the uphill side, so it isn't one of those reversed. But I can't make the topography match any of the others? Or am I barking up the wrong tree and it isn't at Combe Hay after all? Where else had balance beams on the non-towpath side? I know some of the Aylesbury Arm locks do for example. Anyone got any thoughts?

Tempted to ask "navigable in what?" - the water in that shot doesn't look narrow boat sized.

It happened on the Ashby because, prior to the stop gate being fitted the third party length burst and they couldn't get the stop planks in. That's a long length being drained! The arrangement is now a single gate that is normally closed but a paddle in the gate is open, if a boat wants to pass the gate can be opened, if the third party length bursts then the paddle is closed.

CRT won't be involved - restoration at Staveley and Renishaw will be maintained by CCT

This has puzzled me too - either the Usk has enough water or it hasn't. Paying to take it out ain't going to change that. That's not the difference, the change is that historic abstraction rights have been withdrawn - CRT are a navigation authority but navigation authorities are losing their grandfather rights. That said, NRW do seem to have it in for canals - I'm getting some "interesting" answers elsewhere on other canals too....

It's been held up with steel props for a long time, I guess since before the mill closed as the weight of traffic over it after that would be minimal. The contractors have recently taken quite a lot of heavy plant over it to work on the main site and to clear the breach site from below (doing it from above would carry a high risk of an unconventional approach to clearance with the machine tumbling down the hillside carrying all before it... ) - In theory the old brodge is being retained as part of the planning consent, and it won't carry any vehicle traffic once the new bridge can carry plant, but looking at it's condition today I did wonder if it was going to survive.