I am also intrigued by this area and wonder how much exploration has been done on foot around the fields nearby.
For example, was there a line of the canal to the east and NE of the Brinklow Arches before they were constructed or completed? Aerial photographs and 25" maps suggest there might have been a continuation of the loop around to the south of Stretton Stop crossing even the railway line routing and then ESE curving around the 'tops' of the fields. There are several 'linear copses' - often a give-away for old canals and tracks, but - on the other hand - the full line isn't clear at all. Those two copses (one straight, one curved) are very close to the 300' contour. It does seem unlikely (as the 300' contour heads NE for a long distance, way past Newbold Revel.)
Then further south, where the 'Brinklow Straight' turns east (heading southbound), it looks as if the Brinklow Arm doesn't make a straight connection back to the current canal line, but twists north, east and south again before heading east. There's also quite a drop to the stream here, with a (working?) sluice still there, just at that point where the current canal turns due east.
I have often wondered why the village of Brinklow hasn't pushed to restore the arm right down to the village (at either end).
I also wonder if the canal always ran straight through All Oak Wood west-east. There is a bit of a cutting, particularly on the north bank, and there's a more obvious, flatter route through the woods (much more obvious in winter) and there are pools of water here and there in the woods. However, I acknowledge that in a woodland, there should be much more obvious sign of a disused canal bed as no-one will have ploughed through it for 180 years.
I am also puzzled by the quite substantial Cathiron Lane cutting, west of Tuckey's Bridge. Was this part of the modernisation, or was there an earlier loop around the (High Oaks) ridge to the south? There were a lot of stone quarries in this area in the Victorian era (both east and west of Fennis Fields Farm) so surely there would have been an attraction to this particular area. However, I notice that Cathiron Lane itself is absolutely level with the water at this point. Perhaps the canal ran along what is now Cathiron Lane originally rather than through the shoulder of the ridge. If you have a look at the NLS maps and compare it with the contours locally, you will see what I mean. Why cut through a ridge when there's a gap just 40 metres away?
Has anyone got permission to walk the fields and woods to trace these old lines of the canal? I think the entire old line is now on private land.