Pluto

I'm not too sure as I am uncertain about their exact role. Perhaps that says it all, their message is just not getting through. Up on the L&LC, they seem to be more concerned with generating new volunteering opportunities, rather than working with established volunteers. Whilst realising that getting to new volunteers is important, ensuring that those who are already volunteering are happy with what they are achieving is probably more so. It all comes down to management: it is cheaper to keep an employee by ensuring that they are committed to their role, than to replace them.

It does highlight one problem, and that is that at the moment there is no consistency across BW in the way it treats volunteers. Some members here seem to have no problem, whilst others are being put off. There are certainly individuals at management level who don't understand volunteering, as MP mentions above, whilst Laurence shows that some areas of BW are working well with volunteers. What has concerned me, is that there has not been a concerted effort by BW to bring local canal societies on board with regard to helping them with volunteering. The BW attitude seems to have been that the voluntary sector should contact them to coordinate efforts. That's certainly the opinion I get from contact with Waterscape. They don't seem to realise that developing contacts is most effectively done by a professional, and that volunteers feel they have better things to get on with, things which give them satisfaction from their unpaid work. BW need to be much more pro-active in their relationship with volunteers. Of course, the major problem is that BW's finances are in such poor condition, that its staff just don't have the time to develop such links. Yesterday, whilst passing the BW office in Wigan with Kennet, the L&LCS heritage boat, we stopped in order to show staff what we had to offer in the way of promoting BW's work to the wider community, and perhaps discuss how we could add value to what BW were doing. There were certainly positive comments, and it is always good to meet some of the more backroom workers, but I did get the impression that they were under too much pressure to be able to develop linkages between the L&LCS and BW, certainly in the short term.

It's also worth remembering that they would have used lead based paints and then varnish, which would have resulted in the colours changing. This was brought home to me when I first painted Pluto in the Canal Transport colours of black and white. Several boatmen in Burscough commented that it didn't look right, and that was because the white should have been almost light cream because of the varnish.

Depth is always a problem as you cannot allow for what can be thrown in. That said, a traditional L&L boat would draw about 3 feet, though not across the full 14 feet width, and would draw down at least four inches when underway. You would not need to use the ship canal as you can get into tidal waters at Liverpool or Tarleton. For the Leeds & Liverpool, I have set down the following, which should also be on the L&LC Society web pages: L&LC Dimensions The official 1888 canal returns give 61 feet as the maximum length for locks on the L&LC. Dowley Gap had the shortest chamber, at 64 feet 4 inches, probably measured between the quoins, where lock gates pivot against the lock wall, so not that much use in giving a true usable length. Although 61 feet is still often quoted, an 1898 specification for a typical boat gives a length of 61 feet 6 inches measured over the stem and stern posts, and the iron and steel boats sometimes quote 62 feet 6 inches, though this probably included the rudder. It is really impossible to be definitive to 6 inches, and we would always advise 61 feet as a guaranteed length, though it is possible for a longer narrow boat to use the locks diagonally. However, when thinking of building a boat, always remember the Calder & Hebble Navigation, whose locks in 1888 were quoted at 57 feet 6 inches long with a width of 14 feet 1 inch, making them smaller than those on the L&LC. Elland Low was quoted as having the shortest length between quoins, at 60 feet 7 inches. When it comes to length on canals, there is only one way to tell and that is to try it, as most old boatmen would advise. Air draft is variable, as it depends on the shape of the bridge. A stone arch bridge may have sufficient headroom in the centre, but insufficient at the sides, while modern flat bridges may be lower than arched bridges, but offer better headroom over the whole channel. For arch bridges, Leigh Bridge is one of the lowest, together with Altham Barn Bridge, while that at Shipley is one of the lowest flat bridges. Note that this bridge tapers downwards to one side. A clear height of 7 feet 10 inches is sometimes quoted, but slightly higher boats may be able to pass if they have narrow cabins. Care should always be taken by boats approaching the quoted headroom as canal levels can also rise and fall.

Thick plates for thick steerers! My friend's 1200 ton boat in Germany had plates thiner than 5mm; the bow and hold dated from the 1930s, the stern from circa 1900, so it is how you look after the hull which matters, not the thickness. The only use for thick plates is as a replacement for ballast. If you feel the need to go barging, try hiring a klipper ot tjalke in the Netherlands. They can take around 16 people and come with a crew of two. When a group of us hired them in the late 1980s, it was cheaper than hiring a narrow boat, and you really need to try traditional sail.

Canals are not just for those with boats, and as, at the moment, we all own the canal system, anyone should be able to have their say regarding developments which will affect the canal environment. This development will have a major effect on the number of cars using what is at the moment a small swing bridge. It is a problem that needs addressing at the planning stage, and not after the development has gone ahead. The best decision can only be made when planners know how many people the development will affect, both local and canal users. On a personal basis, I have promoted the use of the Leeds & Liverpool Canal and its environment for over forty years in both a professional and voluntary capacity, and by informing people as to what was happening at Bingley, neither for nor against the project, I was continuing my long involvement with the canal to the general benefit of all. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Leeds & Liverpool Canal came very close to being closed. Had we all had an attitude similar to yours, we would not now have the pleasure of using the canal.

After the war, small crawler tractors were made by Bristol at their factory in Earby (between Skipton and Colne). Two were tried for towing an icebreaker on the L&LC summit level at Foulridge in the winter of 1947. The more 'conventional' tractors used on the GU around London were also tried on the L&LC in Liverpool in 1954.

One problem is that many people do not recognise change over time, and that they need to understand that what is portrayed is what happened at one particular point in time. Even then, it can just be one person's interpretation. I have a similar problem with the use of roses and castles on new material related to the Leeds & Liverpool Canal, rather than the traditional Brightwork. Local individuality needs to be preserved, and there are often local traditions which are not well known which are being destroyed by the introduction of more widely publicised traditions from outside the immediate area.

But if the money is spent wisely, there won't be such a large funding gap, and that will make it easier for those looking for funding. Of course, if governments took their responsibilities seriously, there wouldn't be a funding gap.

Quite a lot came through Goole, after passing down the Aire & Calder in Tom Puddings, so canal boats were involved in the trade.

I'm not saying fund raising is unimportant, just that how you spend it is more important, especially as this will have an effect on long term fund raising. People are less likely to give money to a charity which wastes it.

I wouldn't be a problem if everyone was using a full draught/draft boat to keep the water well stirred.

Surely the most important job is maintaining the waterways, after all that is the core of the business. Funding might be important, but it is more important for the money to be well spent if the business is to succeed.

I always think tradition is what you make it, as it varies over time and place. One problem with looking at canal traditions is that they reflect a tradition reaching the end of its working life. Charlie Atkins told me that when he worked for Midland & Coast as a young man, he was known as Ruggy, because he was so rough in the way he handled boats. After one accident, he was called in to the office and shown his page in the steerers' book, which was completely filled with events and damages. He was then shown the page of one of the older boatmen which was completely blank. He was told, in no uncertain manner, that if there were any more additions to his page he would be out of a job, and that his page needed to be like the older boatman's. As a young man, it made him realise that he had to look after his boat, something he was brilliant at by the time I knew him when we worked together tripping on Lapwing. I suspect that many of what would have been younger boatmen in D&IWE's time would not have had the chastisement Charlie got, with the result that some rougher ways of boating are now considered traditional. If only we could go back in time to see what really happened......

Small accommodation bridges were also required to link fields of one land owner, or just one field, which had been divided by the construction of the canal. Footpaths could be diverted, given the land owner's permission, so that they used accommodation bridges. Such bridges were built as cheaply as possible, resulting in the numerous swing bridges on the Skipton Pool of the L&LC. That these are a pain to passing boats is well known here, but boatmen leaving them open also caused problems to locals. As a result, the 1790 L&LC Act had a clause requiring over bridges to be built on new sections of canal unless there was full agreement to a swing bridge. Existing swing bridges were required to be converted where possible. This did not happen to any great extent on the Skipton Pool, though some were replaced, but all of the swing bridges in the Liverpool area were rebuilt as overbridges.

I turned a full length boat, ie 62 feet, by the slips in the 1970s, though you may have to move moored boats today.

The main benefit of boats going to groups rather than individuals is that public access should be routine, and that public access makes it a heritage boat rather than a historic boat. I am involved with Kennet on the L&LC, and what worried me about the takeover by groups was that there was no fallback position should the group fail to maintain the boat. I inserted a clause in our agreement that, should the L&LC Society be unable to continue looking after Kennet, she would pass to the Yorkshire Waterways Museum who would arrange suitable disposal. Unfortunately, we seem to have been the only group which has addressed this downside of group ownership. I think BW should have insisted on all the 'heritage' boats having similar clauses in their agreements, but it is too late now. Of course one benefit that a group can get is access to the Heritage Lottery Fund. The L&LC Society is awaiting a decision on our application for funding for Kennet. If you would like to visit Kennet, she is at the Saltaire Arts Festival this weekend, and currently has a display about the traditional paintwork on L&LC boats. We will also be at the heritage event at Burscough over the last weekend in June, and at Crooke the following weekend.

BW did have some influential staff in the 1960s/70s who helped to open up waterways to a wider public. In particular there was Peter White, whose Birmingham redevelopment plan led to much greater interest in canals by town planners. Whether you like the results or not, there certainly would have been fewer reopenings if planners had not seen the benefits of the canal environment, and other areas would have fallen further into dereliction. I do agree with your other comments, in that today the canals are part of the leisure industry, and the industry needs to have a voice at the highest level. Someone with a bit more of a practical background would have been useful as well. They all seem a bit like office-types to me, and there is nothing like knowing the job professionally from the bottom up.

I was there in 1972, I seem to remember with a group from Gas Street, though by then I was working for Peter Froud at Preston Brook. I also worked on the Rochdale Nine, and was there for the opening on Attila, and took my own boat Pluto to an unrecalled event, possibly earlier as I couldn't take the boat up the flight. Until 'adjustments' had been made to the Rodwell Tower concrete supports, it was impossible to get a wide boat passed there. Does anyone remember the Christmas parties under Rodwell Tower?

Underbridges, where a road passes under a canal, are usually found on canals built prior to 1780. I suspect that canal engineers soon found that they were more expensive than conventional bridges, so few were built between 1780 and the 1810s, when embankments became a more common feature of canal building. Good examples of early underbridge construction can be found on the Bridgewater Canal, and of later construction, on the Shroppie.

The L&LC used a standard lock measurement of 80,000 gallons for all its calculations. There are around fifteen years' worth of weekly reports of L&LC water supply in the Vince Hill Killick (they were the L&LC solicitors) papers in Bradford Archive for those who want to make an in depth study. I do have digital copies. Catchment areas can be a little confusing when calculating feeds and compensation water supplies, as that for Winterburn is much smaller than that for Eshton Beck, both of which form a single supply into the L&LC, and both provide compensation water. I am not sure where else water can come from if not rain. Any water pumped up from underground has to have fallen as rain previously to get there.