Derek R.

Nostalgia - yes I love it too: King's Cross steam 1950's; London

The latter may be well supplied by Alan Faulkner's 'Grand Junction Canal' ISBN 0-9517923-1-8, (can't help with Lesley Morton) Anything by Charles Hadfield or Edward Paget-Tomlinson. For the social side; 'The Waterways of Britain, a Social Panorama', by D.D. Gladwin ISBN 0-7134- 3159-8. Also by Gladwin, 'The Canals of Britain', ISBN 0-7134-0492-2, and 'An Illustrated History of British Waterways' (not the company) Gladwin again, ISBN 0-904978-28-1. The latter I have just picked up for £3 at a Railway Centre (not that it helps you, but they do pop up). We must not forget L.T.C. Rolt either, his 'Landscape With Canals', being part two of his Autobiography is very good (as are the other two parts, 1 and 3). Rolt especially, but Gladwin also are very readable, and keep the interest. I once read Aickman's 'The River Runs Uphill' and I doubt I will read it a second time. It comes over as a very 'guarded' piece of writing, somewhat dry and lifeless. As to where you might get them - Faulkner's is in print, about £17.50 hardback, the others I would suggest trawling the internet - try Abe books as a starting point, Amazon even, or even Ebay. Derek

They are called 'Envirofascists'. Wind is notoriously unreliable in supplying power when most needed. Hydro power is expensive, and Solar is fine for small consumption, if you don't mind giving up most of our green and pleasant to fields of cells. Winter? Don't ask, freeze and die might be one answer. I have nothing against horses, though the mountains of dung might once again be another 'problem'. With regard to Edinburgh tram project, Councillor Burns got a drubbing in the press over that, and the cost (as always) would and hopefully has, been spent on improving the existing bus fleet which is by far a more flexible form of transport, able to incorporate new housing estates with vehicle interchangeability to other depots and areas - without the need for steel rails embedded in road surfaces, and tons of overhead wiring and its infrastructure which is the tram/trolleybuses Achilles Heel. Another one from several years ago: " Flexibility is key when providing public transport to maximise on the available vehicles to suit existing or new routes for the cost effectiveness of supplying a public service. What improvements to the existing flexible network of buses could be provide with £350m? Instead, the Scottish Executive is prepared to gamble on a 'business' of installing a web of steel set in the roads and over the heads of Edinburgh's population. Beware the spider in this web - it's name is 'bankruptcy'. The attraction could be fatal." I had not noticed London Underground running 'Heritage Stock', hardly something that the average commuter or tourist is likely to see in a deep tunnel, though I have in the past myself taken an 'Enthusiasts Special' in 1938 Stock. And whilst we did go sub-surface for a while, most of the running was overground - Amersham to Baker Street, around some rarely used City sidings, and back out to Amersham. A 'strange' day out. Opposition to the Underground system was almost certainly there from the outset, just as it was for the canal builders and the railways that followed. But by and large they represented advancements in communication and services - with the Underground, once all was complete, it remained unseen and Underground! Steel rails in roadways were something to wonder at, with the seemingly effortless and smooth conveyance they provided in comparison to that which had gone before. Roads were poor, even in urban areas, and the 'New' steel road carried their swaying ships two floors high without the bone jarring jolts from cart and carriage, must have been a sight - especially at night. My Grandmother recalled the first trams along Wood Green High Road, great groaning islands of light, she watched them pass from the balcony of her flat in amazement. But as traffic increased, and the boarding and alighting became ever more risky from their central running road, their days were soon numbered. Go take a ride on the trams at Crick, and the BCM, or Trolleybuses at Sandtoft - nostalgia is a main driving force amongst many who would have us back on trams - where economics are only whispered about behind backs. Look up 'nostalgia' in a dictionary - it's been classified as a medical condition. Derek

It might be prudent to consider, that if the present day canal system was still a major industrial artery for the transportation of goods, we might not be welcomed on it! In the case of Fleetwood trams, like other usurped transport systems; the atmospheric railway; the Trolleybus, they have done their best, but costs involved in maintenance, and the superior flexibility of the motor bus make the latter not only a logical alternative to adopt, but a necessary one under the prevailing circumstances. I grew up surrounded by Trolleybuses in North London, and was sad to see them replaced by Routemasters. While the tram has its attractions, so do most Follies. I wrote this six years ago to a leading newspaper, whether it got published or not, I do not know. -------------------------- April (coincidence?) 2003. Dear Sir, I like trams. They are photogenic, quiet and 'swishy', accelerate rapidly, you know exactly where they are going to go, and can shift hundreds of people in an articulated set. They remind me of branch line railways and modern transport all at the same time. Trams are like beautiful women, or expensive cars; lovely to see; lovely to watch; lovely to hear - but they'll break your heart, and your pocket. They need specialised depots, hundreds of miles of steel track set into an existing road network upon which some of the vehicles are incompatible with, two wheelers primarily. The servicing of underground cables and conduits becomes increasingly difficult with embedded trackwork, which itself wears out and needs replacing periodically. (The town of Grenoble is renewing it's tram track after just ten years of service. One of the reasons why London trams were eclipsed by the bus). Their tyres, steel variety, also wear and need replacing and not by Kwik Fit. They cannot be driven around accidents or temporary road closures for any reason. One power failure and the whole network can be affected. Overhead wirework is expensive to maintain in addition to trackwork. They are public transport in a straight jacket. In 1949 the presence of a tramcar on the streets of London was an embarrassment to the capital's post war planners, and as such was cited as an obstacle to all manner of traffic improvement schemes. In the 'County of London Plan', which promised a wholesale rejuvenation of the metropolitan area, tramways, modern or otherwise, did not enter the equation. In that same year Lord Latham, Chairman of the London Transport Executive, delivered a speech outlining plans for the tramways conversion program in which he stated: "The loss on the trams is about £1,000,000 a year." 1949 remember. In the same year it was announced that the Trolley-Bus system would also be scrapped. Sir Cyril Hurcomb, Chairman of the British Transport Commission, was quoted as saying that maintenance on vehicles and tracks was costing around one and a half million pounds a year. That was March 1949. Two months later, on 16th May, the same theme was taken up in the House of Commons by Mr Callaghan, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. He reiterated that the Government did not favour retaining systems which required keeping a fixed track in the public road. It is said that history oft repeats itself. If you want an example of the worst excesses of tram plans you have only to look at the scheme that Ken Livingstone and TfL are planning for West London. There the main roads that currently carry a large percentage of through traffic will be CLOSED at choke points in Acton and Ealing to allow the trams to run and all other traffic shuffled off into the back streets. Roads are the arteries of commerce. It needs free circulation - not choking to death. It seems some things do not change: The ignorance of history and the repetition of errors. Derek Reynolds. ---------------- Some beautiful trams - but look at the space they have to operate in. More on UK trams from Light Rail. Expensive damage, Plumstead, SE London.

Blimey! I counted 3,085 from that list give or take a finger.

Just grab yourself an urn of Tea, pick up a set of Nicholson's Ordnance Survey Guide to the Waterways, and start counting. Each canal listed has the mileage and number of locks on the first page to each canal, some are flood locks, but I believe they are still counted. Or you could choose the Shell Book of Inland Waterways, or Charles Hadfield's Canals of Great Britain. In twenty minutes I have come up with 1,080, not including Teddington, Wey & Arun, River Wey, nor the Basingstoke. All from Nicholson's three, plus their one on the Thames. If you wish to include locks into docks, there will be more. Derek

Thanks Mike, but I fancy it's a tip of the iceberg. Can you explain how the mileages are arrived at, and what canals are included in the 'restored' column? An explanation to the column headings would be welcomed, though I understand this may be more than you are willing to share if it's copyrighted. Derek

Xilence, your English is quite 'well' (good) enough. Waddington's yard is several hundred miles from me. If it were closer, I would be there with the measuring tape! Good luck - Derek

For anyone not knowing what a Smith and Rodley crane looks like, just search for Smith and Rodley on Google - lots. Some used on the railways, some drag-line. Interesting request xilence, cannot help directly, though I drove Linden tower cranes for a short while, with the occasional Stothert and Pitt, Leibherr, and Babcock, all tower. West Yorkshire have archives that may be able to help: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archon/...ails.asp?LR=205 , but I see you have been searching in many places, and that may have been one! 'Hands on' with a tape measure is what you need. Derek

The Nurser Hazel was at Boxmoor a couple of months ago. Bumped into the owner resident at Boxmoor Station whilst vintage 'bussing'. Long haired bearded chap, very enthusiastic about the boat. Think he may have a mooring on the offside above Fisheries. Derek

Interesting comments. It will surely only be a matter of time when the early canal hire boat and private boat become as 'in demand' as some ex-working boats. Clearly with river launches and Broads cruisers this has been an active area for many years. Caravans from the fifties and sixties are sought after by period vehicle enthusiasts to add to their entourage. Their reason for being desirable will undoubtedly be that they evoke a period in time when certain generations were young, and feel a desire to recreate that era. It's just a matter of time, assuming enough survive intact. Should they be in 'History and Heritage'? Inevitably they will be. I don't find them attractive, but then neither am I (beauty in the eye and all that). They do look a little like a Broads cruiser mutant. But then the human race is a mutation of species so nothing new there. Derek Speaking of which . . .

Uxbridge Boat centre. They might have some graphite based left.

Thanks David, The oldest map of the area I have found on the web is from: http://www.old-maps.co.uk/indexmappage2.aspx Put Uxbridge in the search window, and by manipulation, the area around the pub can be seen - albeit not very clear. Oldest map visible here 1881. The canal and bridge are well established. I'll be chasing the Wuxen's now! Derek PS I'm sure that shot of below Uxbridge lock is what appears in Painted Boats where young Alfie goes off into the 'Toll' office. We used to tie above occasionally, but that was in the eighties.

Ah yes - So the site of the bridge would be just to the right, and the towpath the other side of the building and the canal beyond that. If you suggest that the slip might have been a Ford across the river, then the building, or at least the one depicted, may pre-date the canal - canal and bridge being built at the same time. Interesting all this piecing together. Derek

Agreed. Closer to "Near the Swan & Bottle" might be more accurate. I wonder if it might not have been a long gone building 'opposite' the pub. Hard to say, so much has changed. Derek

Dave, free speech is alive and well which is why you and I, and many others post here, it's just opinions that might vary. I have not suggested that the locations shown by posters should prevent an opinion being expressed - the shown location may not indicate a persons actual location. There is no canal in St Albans (though it was at one time planned), but the boat is on part of the route much of which I am familiar with. It just seemed that a trio of voices sprang up from apparently far and wide with potential criticism, and I made that observation. Read into it no more than that. Dressing up often goes with public shows - I spent a glorious Sunday at Quainton - the Buckinghamshire Railway Centre - where there was a steam and historic vehicle event along with the railway stock. Oily boiler suits, greasy waitscoats and caps were to the fore. Army vehicle restorers were there in period uniform, Victorian cyclists etc. likewise, and I'm sure the BCM had its share of red neckerchiefs and Bowler hats of those who wish to 'imagine', and present something from the past for a little more authenticity, even though they may be a bit too clean and inaccurately garbed. But dressing for a recreation of a coal run amongst a comparative few enthusiasts, and at early and late hours - surely the 'dressing up' will be in warm clothing and dry, which is just what people on the boats did when carrying. To quote myself: - "There will be boats passing some at early hours and late. It's once every other year - so far - in which lock working efficiency comes to the fore. Genuine problems for others will, I am sure, be few and far between - that much is appreciated by the organisers, and by most who participate. I will not be, it's just not something that attracts me. Though if I were in the vicinity, I would gladly set a lock or three and help them through for the sake of remembering the crews that lived the life, and just a little of what was once the canal's reason for being." Yes, things move on, but a reminder of the past in more than static exhibits brings history to life and can be a source of enthusiasm for the younger generations as they see and are shown an opportunity for involvement. This is not said with specific reference to the 'jam'ole run', but ex-working boat practices in general with an emphasis on handling and working boats and locks. Some motorcycle clubs have 'gaslight' runs (carbide lamped bikes only), others midnight rambles - for their own pleasure and enlightenment. Hardly public events, but valuable nonetheless. Some of the earlier recreated runs were crewed by ex-working boatmen, I can imagine a spark of "We'll show 'em" crept in. Whether they held back when passing boats I do not know. But now it is taken up by others. There may be a question over it's relevance, especially as it is not a public spectacle. That in itself may be a reason for its demise, if indeed it does. If I were moored en route and awakened at 4am by engines and paddles, I might think it a gross inconvenience - or, that it's only once every other year, and watch them go by. Alternatively, we could forget all that, and boat when the Sun shines, when the pubs are open (though preferably closed), or just polish and tinker - activities almost as pleasurable as boating to be sure, but how more pleasurable to see things on the move. Should they be denied because of the time of day, or should they be free to boat once every two years in a way that commemorates the last long distance regular traffic - be it in a small convoy, or singly. Four a.m. boating can be a wonderful experience at times. That said, my wife remembers getting up one morning whilst moored out in the fields on the Macclesfield, stretching and yawning as she sat on the bed edge, only to see a pair of Waterways men poling their work punt slowly and silently by. Never were curtains drawn so fast. Derek I'll PM it. D.

Morning - Ta, good point. Derek

The caption states "The last coal run" but was it? Albert's two in Cassio, from D.D. Gladwin's 'An Illustrated History of British Waterways' published by Spur 1977 (P.145) shows a black and white shot taken from the top gates of "Cassiobury Top Lock 1970" with a gent in a beret steering the motor (and just beyond the bottom gates), and a lady in a headscarf and short 'shiny' jacket steering the butty 'Ara' - no writing on the cabin sides, loaded, cloths rolled up and a bike on the coal. Another question: Why 'Albert's two', and sometimes 'Mary's Two' (same pair of locks). We know about 'Sutton's', but who were Albert and Mary? Come to that - Peter below Maffas? Just local character/lock keepers, or is there a story? Derek

Cardboard? - Cheapskates! I'd thought of drilling a small hole in each end of the tube, and squirting expanding filler in. Wait for it to ooze out the other end, trim when set, fill, sand and paint. I agree the cross-heads need some movement to get the needles working, and for all I know there probably is some, but greased often enough, and the occasional disconnect for a waggle around should see them out live me. Not like they are under the stresses that a lorry would take. Derek

Only a few, but I've not seen them before. Most are of the Thames, but a few around Uxbridge and Brentford. The Swan and Bottle seems to have changed - a bit! http://www.ltmcollection.org/photos/themes...=1&IXpage=1 Derek

That Layrub coupling looks about as close to the metalastic that came out of Tycho than any of the others. I seem to remember it appeared like a solid rubber disc sandwiched between two metal plates. Quite how exactly it was fixed to the plates was not clear, no bolt heads could be seen, and tough as new motocross boots, but then it was seven years ago I last set eyes on it. Not only would it take some misalignment, it had a very good ability to transmit thrust ahead and astern. Also would take some of the shock when the blades hit hard objects - and It was mounted just as Tim states. Whilst we had no problems with our block deteriorating, we have heard of other types of flexible couplings involving flexible plates bolted at the lugs alternately to one plate then the other, failing catastrophically. The Layrub that Neil refers to looks more substantial, though the ability to efficiently transmit thrust might be in question, and I'll expand out of interest (hopefully - though not experience of the Layrub). It was the reverse/forward thrust issue that needed to be addressed when changing from our metalastic system to the lorry prop. The positioning of the plummer blocks mounted on the boats bottom in the previous setup meant that when on dock, the flexing that took place (bed'ole wouldn't close etc.) put stress on the shaft (depends where the stocks are of course). This in turn had worn the tailshaft and bearing prematurely - not that much flexing if any took place when afloat - but the shaft was not as well contained in its movement as would have been best for tail shaft alignment due to the distance from plummer block to tailshaft. The lorry shaft with its two UJ's is mounted between the reduction box output flange and the tailshaft flange and supported at the back by a new plummer block mounted on a cross web between the swim plates close to the tail shaft - and the reduction box output bearing at the front. This latter gave rise to showing up a problem that the previous set up had hidden: The old plummer block was fairly close to the reduction box output and had the effect of supporting the short reduction box output shaft and flange thereby keeping it more or less well aligned in the casing. The thrust bearing mounted in the output had worn, and now with the length of the new shaft weighing on it, showed its failing in an 'orrible clankety clank from under the floor in astern. It started this half way up the Stockton flight after leaving the dock. Sounded like the blades were hitting something. Thought it was a bit of ballast touching the shaft coupling bolt heads. None of the above! The drop in attitude of the reduction box output allowed due to the worn bearing, had tilted the larger pinion in the reduction box (3:1) and was allowing the cast web supports (four if I recall right) of the pinions face to contact one of the internal cast web supports of the reduction box casing. The sound was being amplified by the new hollow lorry shaft to frightening proportions. I soldiered on, and did a lot of strapping on that trip. I called Graeme, and he said there shouldn't be anything basically wrong with the set up, but to check that reduction box output bearing. Sure enough, it was at fault. One other point to bring up with such changes. The old reduction box bearing was a double ball race thrust bearing, the old plummer block bearing, I believe was not. The new tailshaft is now mounted in its stern tube bearing and a plummer block about eighteen inches forward of it. This bearing is now the thrust bearing, and the replacement that went into the reduction box output is a non-thrust bearing. Noise gone - problem solved. Or is it? The thought occurs to me, that such a length of steel in the form of prop shaft from rearmost plummer block to reduction box complete with two UJ's, that the expansion and contraction of the steel in the shaft, compared to the steel of the hull, will place 'some' load on that non-thrust bearing dependent upon tempaerature. The question is - how much, and will it have any detrimental effect? One solution to alleviate any such load through temperature change, might be to have the lorry prop machined and put a spline in place. The only problem with that (as I see it) is an additional introduction of a moving part prone to more wear and possible misalignment also. So it's staying as it is, with the aft most plummer block taking thrust. When not locked to the shaft, I can slide the tailshaft back and inch, and lift the lorry prop clear for access to ballast and bilge which was a lot harder with the old set up, and I know the tailshaft ain't moving out of alignment. Sorry this has drifted away from metalastic Tim, but it seemed to be associated knowledge and experience that might aid decisions for those in a similar situation (nearly said 'same boat'!). Derek

I haven't been 'on the ground' thereabouts, but from the satellite pictures there looks to be what might have been foundations of a stable block close by the first lock and near the turnover bridge on the south side of the first lock. Also being a junction between two canals, some control over tolls to be collected might have needed a small building at least. Only a calculated guess I'm afraid. Derek

So, do I win the Wooden Spoon award?

This crops up every year. We have a contributor from; Manchester; Bath; and the Peak Forest. If any of those folk have been personally disadvantaged in any way by such a run, perhaps their complaints can be directed to the alleged miscreants. Would any who are actually, or might be affected by the passing of a train of boats like to speak up? There will always be some. In '83 we were headed for Wigan and the IWA National. Our path was a slow three month cruise taking in the Peak Forest and Ashton canals. At the top of Marple we were hailed and vociferously complained to by a resident boater (we also lived afloat at that time) in that we were using water that they needed to keep afloat. 'Too many boats going to the National' was the cry. There are some I will not boat with, and whose practices I do not condone. This is not a moan about whingers, nor a voice for letting 'em rip as some might like to in recreating what they believe was standard practice years ago. But it does seem that whenever something from the past turns up in the garden, out come the guns - it's hunting season. Be it traction engines, old lorries, old buses, old motorbikes with speeds that 'hold up' the modern traffic - something that gives off a little smoke, picking Blackberries from a hedgerow "you know that's stealing" - if anything is certain, our 'nanny state' has taught us how to moan. There will be boats passing some at early hours and late. It's once every other year - so far - in which lock working efficiency comes to the fore. Genuine problems for others will, I am sure, be few and far between - that much is appreciated by the organisers, and by most who participate. I will not be, it's just not something that attracts me. Though if I were in the vicinity, I would gladly set a lock or three and help them through for the sake of remembering the crews that lived the life, and just a little of what was once the canal's reason for being. Derek

The same has been said about running light Locomotives over Network Rail's lines - cheaper on a lorry. I do not know the requirements that needed to be fulfilled at that time, but later in 1980, dole could only be collected after six weeks of unemployment, I neither know if Lesley Morton's comments were tongue in cheek to wind up certain factions, but it does sound like they might have been. The sums may have been done and possibly proven to be more 'economical', but the consequences for crews may not have been seriously considered - even considered at all - does anyone know? Ask Jackanory? Derek