Jump to content

MoominPapa

Member
  • Content Count

    5299
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

MoominPapa last won the day on January 23 2017

MoominPapa had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

920 Excellent

4 Followers

About MoominPapa

  • Birthday 12/11/1964

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    CCer.

Previous Fields

  • Occupation
    Computers
  • Boat Name
    Melaleuca

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Recent Profile Visitors

14820 profile views
  1. People expect, quite rightly, that if the law is going to tell us what to do, then it should be unambiguous. You'd be the first to complain if you did what you thought "responsible people should do in the first place" and then a policeman and a judge came along and fined or imprisoned you because they thought the conduct required of a "responsible person" was otherwise to what you did. You'd be referring to the relevant legislation to see exactly what it said about what you were being punished for doing. Of course the law can't be completely unambiguous and can't cover every single
  2. I don't know the history of skew arches. Is it definite that the builders of the Oxford wouldn't have known how to build them? Maybe, but the line of the canal is not particularly constrained at that point: a very small wiggle would have seen it going straight through the original arch if it occupied the same footprint as the modern one. Given, it's clear that the original builders were not prepared to move a single shovelful of earth to deviate from the contour, but even so, the ground is pretty flat on the towpath side there, a small deviation would have been possible. It seems stra
  3. Lets hope they did a better job than whoever last rebuilt bridge 101. It looks like it was originally built on a mild skew, but has been replaced using pre-fabricated concrete arch sections that can't be used to build skew arches. As a consequence both the towpath and the water channel change width from one side of the bridge to the other. It makes me wince every time I go through it. MP.
  4. It's not in the GU sequence, if you believe Nicholsons. The Junction bridge is 17 and first bridge below the three locks (Tomlow bridge) is 18. Maybe your little bridge was gone by the time the GU bought the Warwick and Napton and renumbered everything. MP.
  5. More on the numbering habits of the GUCo. The locks on the Leicester line are numbered contiguously from Watford Bottom lock to Trent Junction and beyond - the locks on the Erewash continue the sequence. Strangely, though, the bridge numbers seem to reset again to one at Mill Lane Bridge over the Mile Straight in Leicester. MP.
  6. Hatton top lock is 46 and Camp Hill top lock is 52, so that's evidence that the renumbering happened when the GU bought the Napton and Warwick and the Warwick and Birmingham (1927) and NOT when the route was widened (1932). MP.
  7. They do seem to have done so, with the sequence continuing beyond Bordesley junction down the Garrison flight and ending at Salford Junction. Lock 58 seems to have mysteriously disappeared from between Camp hill bottom and Garrison top. I'd guess it may be the number of the stop lock half a mile further on at the junction with the Digbeth branch, but it's not marked as such in my Nicholsons, actually it's not marked as a lock at all.
  8. Ah. From the website Ray linked to: The Grand Union Canal shares it's watery passage with the older Oxford Canal between Napton Junction and Braunston Turn. There are no canal locks along this shared stretch of water but there are quite a few canal bridges. These bridges naturally show the Oxford Canal's numbering and naming system (Bridges 91 to 108) however they are also allocated bridge numbers in the Grand Union Canal's sequence although these are not displayed on the bridges themselves. So the A45 bridge in Braunston, as well as being Oxford canal bridge number 91,
  9. That's the southern section. Those numbers start with Butcher's bridge as number 1 and go south. I'm taking about the northern section which starts at 17 at Napton Junction and increases northwards to around 110 at Salford Junction. MP.
  10. I known that the Wigram's to Braunston turn bridge numbers are Oxford Canal, as is the A45 bridge in Braunston because the first Grand Junction bridge is Butcher's bridge, number one. But why do the northern section of the Grand Union, the former Warwick and Napton and Warwick and Birmingham canals, start with bridge 17 at Wigram's turn? The bridge and lock numbers are contiguous past the bottom of Hatton, incresing towards Birmingham, so they were clearly renumbered when the two canals came under one ownership, but why did they start at bridge 17 at Wigrams and not bridge 1. WHAT HAPPENED TO
  11. One of the bottom gates is bulged in a way no lock gate should ever be. You need to shut the gates on a specific order to get them to close at all. At least that was the state of play last Autumn. I can't believe CRT have done nothing about it. Other problems noticed recently. There's a landslip at the North end of Shrewley tunnel which is slowly but steadily filling in the canal. (There are a couple of landslips in the cutting North of there too: the obstructions used to be marked by hazard tape but they've been there so long the tape has degraded and gone, but we sti
  12. Just a thought. Did you pay attention to the polarity of the Tyco coils? They have built in snubber diodes and if you connect them the wrong way round the diodes will just shunt the coil current and nothing will happen. MP.
  13. A switching transistor would be better. I used MOSFETs because of the low leakage current, but in reality bipolar would be fine too. MP.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.