Derek R.

This is digressing from the strictly towpath behaviour of some cyclists, but our 'duty' whilst out and about is surely to use care and consideration to all others, regardless of whether we walk, ride or drive. Dressing up like Christmas trees and using daytime lights is only buck passing, creating a world in which ones responsibilities for being aware of others is being passed on to another through another not wearing or using so called safety paraphernalia. Lights are to be used during inclement weather and after lighting up time. The downside of using lights during daytime is that they can cause dazzle and 'camouflage' another hazard emerging. So much of health and safety is in the creation of administration and legislation that feeds directly into the litigation courts - and there's only one winner in that lot.

There was broadcast a program on the 'box' over the so called 'war' between cyclists and vehicle users on our roads recently. Must admit I was so sickened by the attitudes put forth from the first five minutes - I switched off. I had already had enough experience of the burgeoning race of urban geurillas during a period of over twenty years of delivering. One of the problems arising from the seemingly new generation of cyclists, is that given so much in the way of lanes and priveleges, they have become self appointed eco-warriors doing battle with the poisonous motorised vehicle. Making segregated lanes and prioritising road space for selected vehicles creates antipathy amongst road users. It also create congestion. Towing paths should be havens away from wheeled traffic other than lock wheelers and maintenance vehicles. On the roads, cyclists would need to accept and respect that they are part and parcel of all road traffic without any such segregated and prioritised lanes. In doing so, not only would they get more respect from other road users, but they may be able to appreciate where roads in general could be safer for all through education and the acceptance that road safety is all generated between the ears. The 'eco' has gone Ego. I ride a bicycle when I need to, and during the sixties rode regularly from Wood Green to Regent's Park home to work - and yes, there was a lot of traffic even back then - nothing new. What is new are underpasses and far too many traffic signals which create grand prix driving. Take most away and traffic engages in blending more safely together and through any junction - less risk to all. Mountain bikes - where's the mountain? Dayglo, Lycra, flashing led lights aimed to dazzle = aggression.

Surely the height of the pulling point is more to do with keeping a taught towing line from tangling with the halyards and stays of any sailing craft than gaining any advantage or otherwise of clearing waterside obstructions, most of which would not have been permitted to exist where traffic was frequent? To my knowledge, there was never any such consideration to towing height at the horses end! Any such encumbrance would have had the effect of pulling the horse off balance, just as a narrow boat would have had its balance compromised, though minimised through being lashed together. Trent and Thames 'towing paths' were indeed different from canals of course, in as much as they were riparian owned in many places, hence fences and gates. In an earlier post Mr. Hogg states: - "Tim, It is the upper Thames acording to the notation which was on the picture but not sure of the location, its the mast that I find unusual in the height. It was posted previously. "

Interesting point about some trees. There was some communication I had - by internet or speech I cannot now recall - but the upshot was that Poplars can draw from the ground as much as 10,000 gallons of water in the course of a year, I think it was a year, may have been less. Seem to recall the conversation was over wood suitable for burning, and Poplar being at the bottom of the list due to water retention. Edited to add: Wasn't it Napoleon who planted trees all along the French roads to shade his troops whilst on the march? Nowadays they cut them down due to the carnage they cause when they jump out in front of cars. (So say the insurance claims).

I could believe Boxmoor of image No.47, the Gade would be coming in from the right at right angles to the navigation and out of shot. But I doubt if the vegetation would have been allowed to exist at the waters edge where the towpath would be on the left - and where is that Grand Junction towpath? Other than that, the layout at Boxmoor would fit well, though I think there should be a house beside the lock. There could be of course, as the image and foilage might hide same. It seems far too much of a coincidence that these two images would have been in different parts of the network when the boats were loaded and appear so similar. The image Laurence has shown has a navigation that bends just like that below Two Waters Way bridge below Boxmoor lock, but the lack of engineered towpath, the weir opposite 'Rose's' wharf and the high eroded bank? That does not match with Boxmoor. Nor would there be any necessity for a tall mast, which ought to be pointed out - is being pulled from at the normal luby height - not the top or anywhere near it. There is an anomaly in where some lines end too. In Laurence's image, a line runs from the cabin top, along the top plank, down the sheeted load from where it curves gracefully upwards and 'through' the head of the chap on the front - then disappears. The line from the bank also looks artificially thick, though if hauling a pair along shallow waters, perhaps it's true. Are you having us on Laurence? Is this indeed a photo collage to wind everyone up?

What I believe is the same pair of boats from D.D. Gladwins Victorian and Edwardian canals from Old Photographs. Image No. 47. This is credited with "A smart pair working up the Grand Junction Canal. Unusual to see shafting in progress - also the mast". It looks more like the Soar to me, but I'm not familiar enough with the Soar to suggest where it may have been. This is taken from a bridge, and likely the same as is shown in Laurence's image from Ike's collection. Here the mast has been unshipped and set at an angle to clear the bridge. The lock in the background has top paddles drawn in what appears to be an attempt to flush the boat along. Is that a weir stream to the right? Maybe not. The crew member with the 'shaft' in Laurence's image may have a length of timber from the cargo, or one of the planks pushing off. The line from the horse is fairly taught, and attached to where the luby would be - not the top of the mast which is held in place with halyards of a sort. There is water flow from the 'weir stream' and open lock sluices from behind and someone on the top gates. Maybe a drought year, they're scraping the bottom at a guess. Why such a tall mast is not known, though sail might be one reason visibility to oncoming craft may be another - it's painted bright enough. Another point is that the gate for the horse is being held open. Such gates as were common on the Trent were of self closing type, so another possible location. Not sure if that might have been a Trent lock though. Did they have same on the Soar? Edited to add: This is clearly not a canal as the 'towing path' is obscure. There is a mature growth on the left in Gladwins shot precluding use of a towing line, and then there's the bridge to negotiate so the horse would have been reconnected after passing the bridge, which is why we see no line in with boats on-coming. [i take that back, there may be a line attached] Odd looking piece of kit on the bow of the right hand boat. Firewood fished out? PS Can the River Wey be ruled out?

Camden Town, just above Hampstead Rd. locks. Railway buildings behind, towpath bridge above.

Blimey! It's 'Gardener's Question Time' . . .

You may be right Darren. Looks like the same pair of boats to me. Planks, tarps, crews hats, and that mast are the same. The books credit states on the Grand Junction - though more like the Soar, and they're being flushed along from the lock behind them. Derek

Couldn't say where that was taken, but the feeling is of a meandering river in Cambridgeshire, or even some backwater of the Thames. The bridge does raise the thought of it being deliberately built to allow traffic. Haven't a clue, but a lovely picture. That sign would reveal much, but Carl has done that.

What You See Is What You Get - well, we see a query over a boat claimed to be one which at the time of the photograph had allegedly not been built. That is according to a fleet listing. Why should people not question a claim when there is doubt - isn't that how a truth is uncovered? We see a picture taken before 1903. We see no clear name or anything like it. Your enhancement is questionable - it's so unclear as to mean nothing. Quite often paint had been worn away to illegible and until there is clear photographic proof that existing documentation is incorrect, it points to that boat not being TAY. Might those small amounts of energy you detect be little more than reflected light or dirty marks? Could there possibly be other boats belonging to Griffiths without Bedworth on. Not such a mountain from a molehill, more like a molehill being called a mountain when for all the world it looks like a molehill! It will be interesting to see what any other software may discover. Perhaps then some questions might be answered. Or perhaps they won't.

When was this TAY built Laurence? - and how does it fit with the pre-1903 lock gates? Either whatever information is available on TAY is incorrect, or we have a precursor to the USS Eldridge phenomena. Honestly, blown up to those proportions you could suppose a number of characters to be available from that bunch of pixels. It is unreadable.

The postcard of the 1903 floods would appear to show the OP's slide as pre-1903. If that is TAY, and from my limited ability to enhance the bend, I can see no letters at all, just some shadowy shapes close together at the left hand end, and if Griffiths TAY was not built until 1906, then either this is a previous TAY, or something else. What other boats were in the Griffiths fleet prior to 1903? (There are two boats aside each other in that shot).

What a fascinating source. Looks like BEN CRUACHAN to me, certainly starts with a 'C', & BLACKWALL 253 OR 2.

You won't recognise it as being anything like that shot! There's an oval plaque on the balance beam which could conceivably be 100, but it is unclear. Wasn't so sure about the wall and the lie of the land until I browsed my library and found this: Brentford in the 1890's In the OP's shot the ladies are wearing white bonnets. Whilst not definitive, many changed to black in respect of Queen Victoria after her death in 1901.

There may be a missing factor here - the length times breadth ratio. Long thin hulls are quite capable of exceeding theoretical hull speeds, one reason why destroyers might have done exactly that, as do racing canoes etc. Generally speaking, for a given displacement as the length x breadth ratio becomes greater, the speed potential becomes higher - long and skinny is fast. Fine swims, especially aft, make for efficient passage. Look to Nature in the shape of fast fish and birds, almost without exception, the leading shape is far blunter than the trailing. The Queen Mary was 900ft along the water line. Theoretically her hull would be capable of 37.5 - 40knots depending on the calculation used - 1.25 or 1.34. She actually cruised at 32knots, but we have to consider wave, wind and propulsion in affecting the difference. YARMOUTH, after an 18' rear swim was constructed, was 60' Lwl. On the Trent with the 18hp PD2 she was capable of holding off two other 60' narrow boats with around twice the power, almost certainly due to swim length and shape. Theoretically, the hull was capable of 9.6 - 10knots (about 11mph). Fine shaped bows may seem like the way to go for speed, but most ships built today have huge bulbous noses under water line. The reason I believe is that such a shape actually increases fuel efficiency. I don't know, and whilst it sounds ironic, they may be faster for it. But speed range may also be a consideration. Mostly they are cargo ships. Can't see racing 'eights' going for that one. Complicated subject with 'fiddle factors' needed to arrive at results in respect of what engine hp/torque/reduction/prop pitch and diameter is suitable for a given hull - and waters in which it will be used. OK, it's but interesting. Back to PROGRESS?

The tolls were set by the canal companies under 'guidance' from government. Mileage was involved in most, but toll points were strategically placed near or at junctions and took in the distance likely to be traveled between toll points. Mileposts were not necessary for any boatman to work out what he paid, that was already established by the company. The toll tickets would almost certainly have a notation of the destination as well as the commodity carried. Illiteracy was not uncommon in many walks of society, but it does not mean the 'illiterate' could not know their numbers. They knew how many pennies to the pound, and what change to expect. I know someone today who is largely illiterate, but you won't short change him!

Long skinny things will go faster through the water for any given horse power than shorter and certainly fatter. There's a formula for working it all out, got a copy buried somewhere. It takes into account length, breadth and draught to arrive at potential hull speed for displacement vessels in 'free' water (not canals!). There's another for prop dimensions for given hulls and engine power/transmission reductions. Bit of a 'black art' by some accounts.

I can't help but feel a loss here. Of course it's up to the owner what they do with their property, and we did much the same thing with YARMOUTH during our ownership: took off a steel topped curved roof (someone likened it to a tube train carriage) and replaced and rebuilt completely into a facsimilie BCN 'styled' 60' tug. We really thought it was the best move at the time. But in hindsight, we lost quite a bit of character, and began to feel we'd lost something that screamed 'different'. The bottoms were naff, and the sides had spread, and the new swim at the back was wonderful. However, with a similar opportunity facing us in our dreamtime future - we'd do it different. Something basic, strong, but not lookalike. When so much of an old boat goes in the bin - is it still an old boat, or a new one? It's an old chestnut - like the Flying Scotsman, half a dozen nuts and bolts from the original (or something like) and is it really the Flying Scotsman at all. Grand-dads broom and all that. PS. No disrespect to the huge amount of work done, just a little personal introspective reflection.

My link to first video from You Tube Welcome 'Jones the boat'. From You Tube, you can copy the url address in full, then use the 'link' facility in the posting page to insert the url address and put whatever words you want to 'make' the live link as I've done above. I'm sure there is another way to bring the video frame up directly but cannot recall at present. There you are - you wait ages then they all come along at once . . . See Carl's post.

Very nice. Bit of history there with the tug and train of fen lighters (if that is what they are). Some cracking wooden cruisers too.

The free flowing brush strokes come with repeated practice. Jeannette mentions the men painted in the main, but how about all those bits of lace, crochet, and curtain making - not to mention dress making and such, definitely the woman's touch to the fore in that area. Having said that, I was busy sewing up a hole in my pocket this-morning! Make and mend - watchwords from previous generations, largely out of necessity but worth carrying on. Like pen and ink letter writing!

Someone been practicing cabbages on a tin plate? Good effort. A boatman's hand?

Yes, I can see the use they may have been for clearing props as George says, though as a dam to prevent rubbish - as has accumulated - from entering the paddles is also valid. Cheers Derek

Can anyone tell me the purpose of the three concrete blocks that look all the world like blocks for a boat to settle on in the bottom of one chamber? Edit to add: Water flow diverters?