Derek R.

Well, that was fun! Eighteen comments and proposals made so far. They really need to become more enlightened on the historic craft front. If anyone's up for looking at the BS EN documents 12340 & 12815, have £128 to hand for each. And - no I'm not. One useful bit is you get an individual email returned to your inbox with every comment made, and the item reference number. Handy for remembering your individual piece of libel! Derek PS (Edit) I did find a lot of good stuff in there, particularly about the fitting of CO alarms, and some of the heat shields with air gaps behind, but it was marred by a lot of drivel too - who is going to put up a yellow triangle sign of "Warning! close appliance doors" right next to their fire they use every day and know like the back of their hand. And if they don't - haven't they got an instruction book, or been told what not to do etc? Pass the doughnuts.

And the Rose as in compass as well as flower has 32 petals and points. You may find it goes back and pre-dates Christian religions as do many things, but that has little to do with the appearance on boats - or does it?

You may be correct, as I have not checked the details. But when filling out insurance proposal forms questions such 'Has the gas installation been carried out by a CORGI approved fitter', it just might affect the outcome of obtaining cover if the answer is 'No'. But as I say, I have not checked the details. I fancy gas installation regs. will cover all gas appliances, after all, it's the same gas from the same source - though stranger things have happened. Whilst still not having viewed the relative details of the proposed regs., I have had a look in depth at the Marine Accident Investigation Branch pdf report into the fatal fire on Lindy Lou. The report cannot single out any one thing that was the prime cause of the conflagration (apart from the solid fuel stove being lit), but certainly involved both a plastic loud speaker near the flue pipe, a book placed within inches of the lit stove and leaning on the wooden steps (which incredibly had unburnt and uncharred parts of pages and spine - very clear photography), and the likelyhood of pyrolisis of combustible material behind the tiled fire surround. It is this latter factor that will ensure that when Tycho's stove gets put back in, adequate measures will be taken to account for this feature!! Derek

In case you hadn't noticed - it's over here.

I absolutely agree. The price of safety is that everyone stops living because it's just too dangerous. Our local pancake turning competition, along with an egg and spoon race had to be cancelled, as they were concerned about Health and Safety regulations being breached. Someone might have got hurt with a spoon, or a pan. Don't walk on the cracks - stay inside the marked areas - wear Hi-viz - helmet - harness - safety boots - display your certificates of competence regardless of age or experience - and if you cannot afford to - finance can be arranged. Ooops! There seems to be a problem in that area . . . Liquidate - sell up - cease trading - enter Job centre - lose home. Tell me it doesn't happen. Back in 1979, a friend and I were looking at a Narrow boat to buy. It was a long way from home so the vendor suggested we slept aboard in the back cabin which he had just fitted out. As it was cold (inch and a half of ice across the cut) he said 'light the fire' - a new Classic on the range shelf by the doors. Needless to say we did, but matey had painted the stove, and not with heatproof paint. After the fumes had been wafted out the open doors and most of the paint had burnt off, it became the turn of the hardboard panelling behind the flue pipe ("It's alright, it's non-flammable Masonite"). It would have made good kindling. After dousing the flames with cut water, we wedged some tin plate into the expansive charred hole and settled down for a fairly sleepless night. No, we did not buy that one. In the mid eighties, I fitted three gas lights in Yarmouth, with a secondary cock in the copper line a few inches from each lamp unit 'off' knob. I curved the bends gently, and fixed them with copper clips held with brass round headed screws. All joints were compression and olives sealed with Heldtite. I carried out a soap gas test on every one, and on every bottle of gas whenever changed. Polished, they were a joy to look at and to use. One boat surveyor saw them and pronounced them better than a professional fit. Today, I would not be allowed to do that, due to lack of any personal certification of 'competence'. In the house I am living in, we had a new gas meter installed - by the professionals. It leaked. We complained and an inspector and fitter came out. A washer had been replaced the wrong way round. The leak is now less than before - but it still leaks. All CORGI registered and certified people, working under authorisation of the gas company. It's just a piece of paper. It's just a job. But if it's my home or my boat - I fix it - and to hell with regulations if I know I can do a better job. It's the same with water and electrics. I am capable and confident, taking any necessary precautions, work with recognised materials, but without a single piece of paper that says "Qualified". Taking instruction on any aspect in life is a basic essential to perform any task correctly and completely. People who do not carry out this basic essential are walking disaster areas - hence a raft of regulations to compensate for their ignorance, ineptitude, and irresponsibilty. The tragedy is; that commonsense is shoved aside as unfit for use, as yet another set regulations are drafted - often cobbled from another existing set to try and meet similar standards for an entirely different set of applications, quote: - "The stove should be installed on a solid non combustible hearth, at least 125mm (approx 5") thick - this depth may include the thickness of any solid non combustible floor under the hearth." etc. My Larbert will be refitted and commissioned by me on the same piece of tin-plate with the same tongue and groove beneath, and the same distance from bulkheads as it has been since 1936 - and it hasn't burnt down yet. Perhaps these regulations do not apply to historic vessels, but not having yet read them yet I cannot say or comment on them. But how many loaves of bread can be baked and sold to the public from historic premises such as they did at the BCM many years ago? None (as far as I'm aware), regulations forbid it. Can I make and sell bird tables from my back yard shed? No, regulations forbid it. Can I drive a vehicle made after a certain date without wearing a constraining device, No, but if it's before that date - legally - it's OK. Does the age of the vehicle make me a safer driver? No, it's what's in my head, and through tuition, understanding and experience - applied in every case. Today my surveyor who applauded my work twenty odd years ago would tell me: 'Sorry, it doesn't meet regulations - because you fitted them'. You can try and fight this stuff, but there will always be some event, initiated by a fool, to produce a statistic, that creates a document that forms a regulation, that will stop you from doing something that you may have done all you life to date without any problems whatsoever. And you will blow a fuse. And rightly so. To quote the 'sociable hermit':- "The classic example of this is the car driving test - most people now agree that the majority of learning normally occurs in the year after one passes one's test, because it is experience that really counts." An elderly couple driving their Ford Fiesta were killed, along with four teenagers in another car recently in a head on collision. I'm sure both drivers held the required document to say they had passed their driving test - but it did not stop a fatal accident. You cannot certify responsibilty, commonsense, or experience levels. These things are not gained with certificates - they are understood over time, applied with sure knowledge - and are not necessarily accompanied by pieces of paper. You can tell the authorities this stuff, but they'll just shrug, and say - "We're bound by regulations". But yes, they will be told. Derek

Is that 'S' for Staines, as in Seaman? Not too far off the tunnel subject are we . . . OK, I'll shut up.

They had WORDS in them? I only ever got to look at the covers through the window before being chased off. (Cardboard box was luxury to me - lived under cats eye in't middle o'road . . .)

Oooer - shadows! If that was by the basins at Kensal Green horse and handler would be facing West and any shadows ought to be on the other side if at midday as the angle would appear to show. As mike says, it's not Cowley - the toll house and cottage would be seen, along with the ramp leading to the road - and the Pub! Something else that has just jumped out at me which I have completely missed before - look at the roof of the furthest building directly above a line from the horses back, that looks like a word in big letters. I may be mistaken but it seems to spell T O X I C and perhaps a second word - there seems to be a line along the bottom of the words as a support. I'm wondering if this is somewhere else on the system entirely - Midlands. Derek

I don't know the boats, though the Lantern Slide theatre rings a bell. Would this be connected to - http://tinyurl.com/apgk4h ? Seem to recall a Rainbow Theatre in Wimbledon - land based of course. Edit: No, scrubb that, it was the Polka Theatre I remember in SW19.

Top marks that man! I was disappointed to see the gas works basin all filled in, we sold Yarmouth to a mooring in there - '92. The Old Map site is good. More by accident, I hit map number 1 (1874) when shuffling around for those co-ordinates and whilst the buildings are not so developed, a fractionally clearer picture can be had for the location. I wasn't sure at first about the 'cheek', as the aerial photo shows a prominent one in the wrong place (wrong side of the basin entrance) but put that down to interim development, but everything else matches nigh on spot on. The municipal features of the architecture, the building layout, and the bridge. I think you have it Steve! Four telegraph poles in length. How far apart were telegraph poles?? Bit far for a photo recce just now. Anyway, you'd only show Tesco's and a different bridge. Excellent.

The railings do rise a little, though not in a substantial way. When taking my shot at Apsley, I took more than one to try and get the aspect right, and one was from standing on the balance beam! Is he towing - or fetching the horse from a stable? More unknowns! The caption says "heavy horse", so it could be 16 hands, around five foot six inches. Our boatman would therefore be no dwarf, and in relationship to the level ground behind him, it would be apparent the camera was set up at a higher level than his head. I need to speak with John down at Cassio.

It's a good one this! Interesting about the double telegraph poles too. In the shot above Fishery they are double, yet in the shot from Broadwater they are single. At some point in time, the main route for telegraphy must have changed from canalside, to railway side. A gradual change perhaps. Strange the things we amuse ourselves with! The book publishers PSL have an obsolete phone number within the dust jacket, and I have contacted Haynes, who took over some of their work but who say they had no hand in this one, so an 'explorative' letter is on its way to Cambridge. The acknowledgements within the book are many, and not linked to the individual pictures, so if no result turns up from the Cambridge address, I might be on a long haul. Amongst those acknowledged are; BWB; Tony Conder; Michael Ware; Hertfordshire record office; The Museum of English Rural Life; and the Victoria & Albert Museum to name a few!

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

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: http://tinyurl.com/bndou7 And another on the Alperton location: http://tinyurl.com/d7jkb6 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?

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

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). Thanks, I did wonder that it looked more 'Estate' than Canal. What of the cottage at Albert's Two? 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?