Derek R.
-
Posts
4,943 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Derek R.
-
-
I see Towcester made today's copy of the Times
Plenty about the race course. Got a link?
-
The City Lock has the right shape of coping, but those houses would surely have been there in the twenties when I suspect the photo was taken.
Another angle:
And another on the Alperton location:
Not sure how it would marry with the rising ground on the horizon, if indeed it is rising ground and not the rooftops of Northern lights in a factory.
I'm going to try the publishers for more info.
I'm still not totally convinced that is a bridge and pipe. It looks all the world like it might be, but there's just not enough clarity in the print, and those buildings are very distinctive to Gas, Water, Municipal works, or even Railway. The picture caption reads "A heavy horse on the lower reaches of the Grand Union Canal" No reference in any text.
There's a chap at Cassio who worked horse barges from Brentford to Croxley along with his Father before him. I must show him this one.
-
Pic No.5
The mystery remains! Here is Apsley by the BW yard. The ground rises in the distance in a similar way, but the curve of the path is wrong, as is the bridge.
-
Well, I was wrong - and I was right!
Yes, it was by Lady Capel's - but looking South from the turnover bridge, not North as I'd previously stated!
Took a look at the bends by Rose's - doesn't compare.
-
Here's a better angle - just about got in the same spot as that photographer did all those years ago:
-
In addition to Odana's post, from Sandwell UDP:-
16.23 Listed Building Consent and Conservation Area Consent will only be granted in the most exceptional circumstances for the demolition or partial demolition of Listed Buildings and Structures along the canalside or in canal Conservation Areas. Alterations to such Buildings or Structures may be permitted, providing that the original structure and materials are retained and restored so far as possible and subject to new structures, buildings and materials being appropriate to the canal vernacular. The canal heritage is an irreplaceable historic asset and should not be further eroded.
16.24 During the 20th century canalside land uses have turned their back on the canal to the severe detriment of a major linear feature. Land adjacent to canals is often a dumping ground, un-maintained with ramshackle fences and walls of diverse materials often of the poorest quality and appearance. Regularly used for open storage of materials, the security of canalside land is evidently a concern, so that mesh fencing and barbed wire abound. Landscaping is rare although wild and overgrown areas give some relief, resulting in the canals being valuable wildlife corridors.
(My emphasis)
Derek
-
It does come a little difficult when one does not know the immediate area, or the current usage of the arm. My thoughts are inclined to look at what is being lost, but at the same time what might be gained.
Clearly from the canal point of view the arm might be, (and has in the past been) used to service and maintain boats, but in the course of having service vehicles entering the Holloway yard to access the boats, there would appear to be some conflict of use. Pictures available on 'Live Local' and 'Google Maps' show seven boats present within the arm, and three in the adjacent, but I do not know when these pictures were taken. Are they now moved elsewhere and the arm empty? Is there any intended development of a future boat repair docking facility a viable economic proposition? Because if not, then one can understand the other side of the viewpoint - that of Holloways Haulage.
The arm represents an area that could be otherwise used in the manoeuvering of their artics without conflict of use. However, in their application there is no intention of expanding their business, and as they have been operating as it is so far - where is their problem? Nor is there any recognition of them gaining the opinions of neighbours in the immediate vicinity about their intentions. One does wonder why not. An area such as this would indeed be more attractive to a developer if a waterway did not intrude into it, so from the Holloways point of view it would be beneficial long term to do away with the water - and any necessary dealings with British Waterways or similarly interested bodies in the name of historic preservation - and fill it in, this would secure a tidy sum if put on the market at some future date. Such an area with a sitting tenant and historic committments would not be so attractive.
Conversley, if it was retained by popular demand for its historic associations - how will it be paying for its continued presence; what practical use will it serve; and how could Holloways be recompensed or positively involved for any increased use from water based activities. Holloways are working in the commercial market place which for them has changed to exclude water born transport. With the current financial situation it hardly seems likely a new leisure based facility would appear to be an investment of any kind.
Save the wharf - but for what exactly? Ideas and propositions need £'s figures attached.
Curious (to me) that the agents name is blanked out from all the available online documents, though their address is there.
-
I'm with Sueb. And ban angling. Unless they pay for 35' either side of them at ten pounds a foot per year whether they use it or not - that's about (or a little less) than boaters pay currently and that's not including insurance, fuel, mooring fees, council tax, or residential licences.
Tongue in cheek?
-
I love these threads....
2 looks like the bend immediately south of the old Roses lime wharf at Boxmoor to me.
1 has me stumped too.
Les
Les, despite the picture credit stating Lady Capel's, i'm having doubts about that No. 2 now, as the shot is taken from a bridge. I'm off to Apsley and Cassio to have a look!
Derek
-
I love these threads....
2 looks like the bend immediately south of the old Roses lime wharf at Boxmoor to me.
1 has me stumped too.
Les
Me too! I know where you mean by Rose's, but they are just entering the 'wide' with Lady Capel's over on the right, and with Lady Capel's lock behind them (out of view).
QUOTE:- "The lock cottage did not belong to the Grand Junction canal, but to the Earl of Essex. When his ancestral home, Cassiobury House, was demolished in 1927, so was the lock cottage."Thanks, I did wonder that it looked more 'Estate' than Canal. What of the cottage at Albert's Two?
QUOTE:- "ADDITIONALLY:I'll be careful here, as I know we have some real horse-boating experts on the forum.
But in most pictures I've seen, if the horse is being led, I get the impression that the person in charge normally positions themself on the side of the horse that's away from the cut, (possibly to stop them ending up underneath "Dobbin" should they go in ?).
In that case which hand they used would depend on which side the towpath was on."
I'd be inclined to agree with that, but as suggested, it would need some input from towing horse handlers.
If I could use a bit of animal knowledge (only a little - my sister is the expert), although it might seem logical and safer to not be placed between animal and canal, there may also be a relationship between any individual animal and its handler that just might determine on which side of each other the pair worked. Furthermore, having read 'Horse on the Cut', it seems that throughout most of the country leading the horse was only commonplace on the Regent's, and even there, the pictures show a mix of practices.
Elsewhere in the book where the horse is being followed, the normal practice (sensibly) is to be placed towpath side of the stretcher and tow line - as the lady is doing by bridge 148 (Picture 3). There is one exception illustrated to this where a small girl is between the horse's rear quarter and the canal. Maybe she had a little more to learn! (Or she knows more that me!)
The 'puzzle' picture No. 1 has me stumped. But my 'familiarity' with further south than the Slough arm is pretty non-existent.
Anyone with knowledge south of West Drayton with regard to this? Norwood? Hanwell? Pity the photo isn't clearer, and I'm still not totally convinced we are looking at a bridge beyond, though It does 'look' like one.
Derek
-
Well, as no-one is guessing - No. 5 is Berkhamsted.
The boats had been sunk (so I'm told) to hold the bank back, and their ribs were still visible in the nineties.
The strange brick structure was the lock keepers house, nothing of which now remains save a little bit of end wall to that which fronted the towpath.
Derek
-
It would certainly be a logical step to make a boat half the width of an existing 'wide' boat so as to both be able to fit two alongside in a 'wide' lock, and when making haste to engineer canals across hilly terrain and especially tunnelling, cut expenses down for the shareholders. Hence seven feet or thereabouts. Why 14'? Any spirit mediums amongst us, we need to ask a question . . . 'is there anybody there . . .'
How wide was the average mine shaft if not just wide enough for a pony hauling a 'tram', and able to pass men walking to and from a face - about seven feet?
-
No. 2 Is indeed Lady Capels, boats southbound.
No. 3 Is the bridge 148 above Fishery lock, and little changed to this day - the double telegraph poles being the main loss. That's the railway embankment in the background. (Yes Alan, Old Fishery Lane).
No. 4 Is Iron Bridge lock 77 Cassiobury Park - does anyone know when the house was demolished? Wide boat Leeds possibly for Tooveys Mill.
No. 5 Is not Northchurch!
I can recall the ribs of some of those boats protruding from the water as recent as 1990.
The pound looks well 'off', and probably why they are all waiting around - more water.
No. 1 has a picture credit that simply says 'Lower Grand Union'. I would imagine the buildings and railings, along with the telegraph poles must be long gone. I did wonder if the negative had been transposed when printing putting everything about face, but it would seem more natural (for most) to have held the horse with the right hand, and the tin with the left. The curve of the towpath screams Sweeps taken from outside the Rising Sun, but the bridge looks all wrong for that.
Could it have been taken by Gas Two? Firstly, the towpath is the wrong side, though if the picture IS transposed it's possible - BUT, there's no bridge at gas Two.
It's not the Nestles factory down the Aylesbury arm, as the windows are wrong for one thing, and the Nestles building is one big solid mill type building close to the road bridge.
Was there anywhere along the Buckby flight that looked like that?
It's not the original Berkhamsted railway station, as that was further back and had the appearance of a Church, with buttressed walls - and the towpath fence and buildings as seen are wrong.
The buildings do have a 'municipal' appearance though - and Louise has just taken a look and said "I know where that is." (Oh yeah, here we go) "That's by Apsley yard where old misery guts used to work from." And I think she might be right. Could these buildings be factory units amongst the New'uns, between locks 65 & 66? Looks favourite to me so far.
Derek
-
Here are five for starters, I know all the locations bar one:
This one - It looks like the short pound between Sweeps 2, but the bridge (is it a bridge?) appears to go downhill to the right. Anyone?
Picture 1
Picture 2
Picture 3
Picture 4
Picture 5
Derek
-
I had a tidy up recently, and see all the previous pics of Apsley & Nash have technically gone. I can fetch them back if desired, but will pop this in as a cast back in time.
I think we can fairly reckon the location, but how about when?
Derek
Sorted - they're all back up.
-
Wow! Don't think I'd want to be under that bridge when it was traversing above!!
Interesting to see their solution to re-launching at the top - take it higher, turn it around, and back into the higher level. I will assume this is due to some danger of the freezing river damaging an upper set of lock gates. Quite an achievement.
-
That's a very nicely edited video, everything clear and in sequence. Good work.
I challenge anyone to start the PD3 on the handle though . . . Took two of us on the twin, the three would end up filling the bilges with sweat.
Derek
-
There are the odd working side ponds at various places around the system. Last time down the Grand Union there was one on the Hanwell flight and another at Marsworth.
Anyone know of any more?
As recently as 1981 most at Marsworth were usable and had signs instructing on their use.
That was the case then - I used them too, but now they are missing pinions or they're fixed and unusable. Great shame. But there's benches and barbecues, and a bit of paint slapped around now and then, so they're still looking after the Waterways . . . .
-
It might not have sliding doors, but you may be interested in the latest pic on http://www.mikeclarke.myzen.co.uk/images.html
Which reminds me: http://www.scribd.com/doc/361603/A-Russian-highway
I would not want to mess with those women!
Love the pot-hole by the garages.
-
Looks familiar. Let me see - tunnel of Love, Southend Kursaal?
Amazing footage, thanks for posting the link Mike. A visit into Worsleys mines would be quite something, I've always been incredulous about 40 miles of underground canal.
Derek
-
How about these..... clicky
Now that I LIKE!
Goy it now, its Shipley with Hebble before conversion and possibly Apollo in the background.It might not have sliding doors, but you may be interested in the latest pic on http://www.mikeclarke.myzen.co.uk/images.html
It even has a waterway connection!
UAS's if I'm not mistaken. Looks like an average Russian Trunk road in half decent condition.
Correct again, and yes to Shipley and Apollo.
Why would they be illegal? as long as the door secures in the open position I can't see it being a problem of driving with them open. Can't fall out with seatbelts on.One of the current Peugeot cars, the 1007?? has only sliding doors, and Citroen Berlingo and Pug equivalent has them for the rear seat passengers.
Yes, you're right, I'd forgotten about them. Love that sinking door.
Rambler were the first with seat belts, and fitted them to stop sleeping passengers from 'falling out the car' a convertible of some sort I think.
-
Not sure of the top pic, though its probably on the Calder & Hebble, but the bottom one is of Wye at Barnoldswick, with Dee in the background. Taken around 1990-5? They are just creating a marina here at the moment after about twenty years of planning. Today, the only traditional boat in the area is Kennet, moored just above Greenberfield Locks. The L&LC Society is negotiating with BW at the moment to take her over.
Top Pic Looks a bit like Leeds to me, but I don't think it is 'Horbury'.
Correct Sir, Wye and the Dee. 1988.
Not Horbury, close to Leeds.
-
It all depends on what you class as 'better'.............
I think it means more 'noughts' on the end of the bill.
-
Are any vehicles made with sliding front doors now? Would it be illegal?
There used to be Transits with sliding doors, I used to drive one occasionally.
The first vehicle I owned was a CA Utilabrake (or was it workabus? wooden slatted seats in the back, along the sides)
It had sliding doors which had rotted at the bottom, if you weren't careful to have the doors latched fully open or closed they would flap outwards on corners.
Tim
Sliding, nanny don't allow now. Remember the Evening Standard CA's - big bundles thrown out the side on the move!
'Workbus' that had the wooden slatted seats. One here called a 'Busette', http://tinyurl.com/auw92h got cushions, and I suspect a different seating layout.
Derek
Where is that?
in History & Heritage
Posted · Edited by Derek R.
Broadwater is lock 53, 51 is the top of Gas Two. I think you'll find that what appears to be a sharp bend is little more than the continuing line to Gas Two. In the Latest shot the Willows intrude the view, and the new wooden footbridge also. Just above the lock on the towpath side, the bank edge is seen further back to the left (exposed bottom there due to the pound being 'off'), and in the new shot the bank edge is a more consistent curve due to piling done in more recent years.
At Northchurch (lock 49) the cottage is on the offside - though it may not have been the original 'lock' cottage, however, if taken at Northchurch the canal would be seen - after first gently curving to the right - then bear left, and this would have been clearly seen from the vantage point above the tail of the lock.
http://tinyurl.com/belx7n