Battle Cruiser

Yes, if it true I'm sure the tunnel played a part. If it is true!

Windlasses for officials only does make sense to me actually. Has anyone seen a photo of fixed windlasses? I did hear a story (that I immediately discounted!) about boaters putting padding on the horses' feet to they could creep through locks at night so as not to wake up the lock-keepers and avoid paying tolls.... Anyways, back to the two tales I originally mentioned. Any thoughts on the veracity of these?

Not convinced by this, although I am totally unqualified in weir design! I thought this design was to even out the flow over the width rather than increase the flow

The Hertford was only ever single lock anyways wasn't it, so not much to change?

Then fixed windlasses sounds like a good idea for when the locks were keeper operation only. Well done with the free Stillsons! I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often at somewhere like Camden actually but I suspect today's yobbo is too lazy / stupid / unprepared for such active vandalism. Cider and spray cans are much easier past times I think it was in the 70s they lock-keepers went

This is what I suspect but someone else who I trust says he remembers it, but I'm sure it would've made the local papers I wonder if the BW demonstration has been misremembered or passed on via Chinese whispers? Fascinating and amusing and unbelievable and also believable about the paddles being used to wash the boat out! Probably quite common once the lock-keepers had gone Interesting - were the windlasses chained to the paddle mech or otherwise permanently attached ? Surely a chain would make them unusable? Have you got a link to the picture? I think it was in the 70s they lock-keepers went

I've heard a tale from cut old timer that back in day (1950s?) a disgruntled and/or drunken Regent's lock-keeper open all the paddles, and maybe some gates from Hampstead Road to St Pancras and the resulting flow flooded King's Cross Station. This then apparently hastened the end of lock-keepers (fall in traffic notwithstanding) and the replacement of the dual locks there with a lock/weir combination to prevent similar happening again, by design or by accident. An entertaining tale, but I've seen no reports of it anywhere. Has anyone else heard this or even better know about it? Talking of dual locks, another cut old timer told me that when a lock is filling with both top paddles fully open, the flow of the water is designed so that the boat is pushed to the island side of the lock, where apparently the boater would prefer it to be (which makes little sense to me). A quick test at the remaining dual lock on the Regent's suggested that this does happen. But does anyone know if it's intentional? BC

Thanks Ray - I actually came to this thread from here, which is why I mentioned it

I know this thread is almost as old as some of the sources quoted now! But if it's of any interest I was reading "Through London by Canal" fro 1885 and the author made a couple of references to "monkey boats" and Googling for a definition of them led me here. He also refers to a "motor monkey boat" - the Fidget Later the glossary defines it as "unpowered canal family narrow boat, 70ft long by 7ft wide" No mention is made of butties though! As an aside, he also mentions "rag and bottle men" collecting scrap iron. I wonder if this became later corrupted to the more familiar "rag and bone"?

Ahhh, that makes sense. There are bollards and even a capstan at the top end of locks - one of which has a fair bit of rope wear round it. Thanks Pluto! That would just get you to the other side of the locks, still some way from the towpath.

Thanks everyone, I think that makes sense now. Although I don't understand why they didn't design the bridge as a true roving bridge. I'm sure they're would've been enough space to use designs 3 or 4, in the below wiki diagram, rather than 1. Anyways, what's puzzling me now is how they got the boats going upstream (west) out of the locks before the bridge was built. This map from 1850 shows how far the top of the locks are from the towpath, which I've marked in red and a speculative bit in pink, and the two wharves in the way. Would they have walked a rope round the basins, or thrown them across, to pull the boats out? Or punted them out? Or am I missing an obvious / common solution? Surely they couldn't have pushed them hard enough from the lockside for momentum to keep them going could they? 🤔

Hi Pluto - the basins were dug when or soon after the canal was cut. The bridge was built when the railway built the interchange building, which is the building with the N/S railway lines and turntables in. Prior to this the towpath left the canal away to the north and rejoined at Hampstead Road. There are capstans still in place at the lock, though well seized up now of course. But there are plenty of deep rope scars on the bridge so rope under load would definitely have been going on

Thanks all - I think my mind is coming to rest! Captain Pegg - I think you're right about the name being a nisnomer, and I think the diagonal may have added to giving it a fancy name. And like Tacet I wonder about the reason for the diagonal too, I suspect it's just because that's where the two bits of land were when the railway building came along. Patron - I did wonder about walking the horse round too, but I think there's only access to the bridge from eastern side because of a wall, which is shown on a map and can be seen from later aerial photos. A chap could squeeze through but a horse would be tricky, but he could walk under and pass the rope on the other side. But that leads to the question why didn't they just build the bridge so it could be used as a proper turnover bridge?!

Hi all, Please be kind to me for asking something probably so simple, but I am unsure as to the operation / usage of the roving bridge over the Regent's canal at Hampstead Road lock, which has come about due to me being sure it wasn't used to allow horses to cross without unhitching. It's the towing of boats coming upstream that's puzzling me. I've tried slowly re-reading this many times but it's only making a small amount of sense! https://www.locallocalhistory.co.uk/ctown/p001/pages12-13.htm By "left bank" and "right bank" I'm assuming it means the northern bank and southern bank respectively? I don't understand the bit about the boat on right / north side being brought over to the other side? How would this be possible? And when leaving the left / south side it implies that no-detaching and re-attaching is necessary which is surely wrong? What I'm thinking happened is this, the rope being walked under the bridge and attached to the horse already on it: Which is similar but simpler than described, could be used from either lock and surely wouldn't need a 'special' local horse to perform it? Have I got it right, or am still missing something? And then perhaps after this, I'll ask about getting boats into the locks traveling upstream! Would there be enough momentum after the Hampstead Road bridge, or would they be able to be towed in given the short amount of tow path after the access gate from the road? (Shown by the steps next to the road) Many thanks! BC

I missed the whole episode but someone has clipped the Camden parts here: Too bad it misses out Paddington basin and the fight scene on Jason! And in another episode there's great shots of the Camden Town locks in this episode: