Pluto

Sailing flats were certainly used on all the wide waterways around the Mersey, though I suspect that the masts would have been taken out after leaving tidal waters. This was certainly the case in Yorkshire, where masts and cog boats were often left at places such as Goole while the keel/sloop continued inland. The Sankey is slightly unusual in that there were no over bridges when first built, so flats could probably have used the waterway. In that case, wind power was probably used when convenient, with horse or human towage at other times. It has been suggested that sailing a wide boat was not too difficult as movement through the water created a cushion of water between the boat and canal bank, allowing the boat to sail into the wind much more than would be expected. I have details of sailing coal boats working between Wigan and Liverpool Docks, via the Bridgewater and Runcorn, before the Stanley Dock branch was opened in 1846.

Catterick was the next to last boat built at Wigan, and was launched in 1949, just after nationalisation. She was part of the Canal Transport fleet operating on the Leeds & Liverpool Canal, with the wooden boats built post-nationalisation being named after Yorkshire towns, and the steel boats after Lancashire towns. The 1724 is the public health registration number at Liverpool. She was probably broken up just before 1970.

You could get further at one time, with the rivers being navigable as far as Bedale in the 18th century.

The basin above River Lock had a pumped water supply for many years as a considerable number of boats came up the Aire to unload there. The level was kept slightly above that of the Aire above the weir under the railway, so the only supply would otherwise have been that coming down the canal. However, in flood conditions the river would overtop the Arches Lock, and sometimes caused flooding around the basin. The ground floor of the old warehouse could also be flooded. On pumping out of the Aire, even if the EA allowed it, the volume of water required to fill a canal is large. Pumps for keeping a canal topped up and to supply lockage are expensive enough, but actually filling the canal could be prohibitively expensive, given the current financial situation. I am sure the crane insurers would question the cost.

Sorry, no picture of the boat, which was just off to the right, but this was Canning in 1969. The new canal comes in just off to the left.

I and several other canal historians were concerned that the canal history pages on the CRT site were not very good. We have made a start on improving them, by providing more accurate historical information, and trying to avoid the hackneyed old chestnuts which keep getting repeated. Have a look at the CRT canal history pages and see if they are an improvement.

Could I suggest that you contact local canal societies --- who should be interested in having younger people involved if they want to keep their societies going. It is something the L&LCS committee has discussed, but as we are all old, though not quite senile as far as I can tell, it would be helpful to have younger people to work with us, and to pass on our knowledge. For example, several members have over forty years experience of canals, and helped boatmen on the last working boats. We operate the heritage boat Kennet, so one way of helping us would be with moving and staffing at events. I think the problem for older canal people is knowing how to interest younger people, which does rather put the ball in your court. Your survey should help, and you could follow up by contacting established groups with the results, and giving suggestions about how you, as younger people, would like to be involved. Ideas from our end would probably just suit geriatrics!

It is not such a simple problem. Firstly, lock sides have to withstand forces which change direction depending upon whether the lock is full or empty. Ground water conditions, and the water retaining properties of the lock sides will make these forces much harder to work out because of water behind the chamber sides. With the lock empty, any water behind the chamber wall will tend toi push the wall into the lock. The mitre gates will then add to the forces, tending to push the lock sides outwards when the gates are closed and under pressure. The lack of a solid foundation in low-lying silty conditions, such as in a river plain, will exacerbate all these problems. The cill framework will stop the sides being forced inwards, but would have less benefit in stopping spreading. Given all these variables, the galley beam is probably there to reinforce the gate mitre by keeping top and bottom of the gates reasonably in line by creating a box section. However, such simple box sections can distort, which is one reason for the more complex and stronger Dutch version.

The locks on the Stour were a much simplified version of those built in the Netherlands where the subsoil was unsuitable for more conventional chamber locks. They could also be considered a development of the early lock system, where there were lifting gates, which I illustrated recently with a photo of the lock at Tienhoven. The Stour locks seem to have had a single beam to keep the top of the gates apart. In the Netherlands, they were more of a wooden tube, and one has been preserved at Bleiswijk, to the north of Rotterdam.

Information about lock size and head room for the L&LC can be found on the L&LC Society's pages.

For canals over 300 years old, there was the Exeter Canal, built in the 16th century. For early regulations covering mooring and boat operation:

If you are interested in waves on canals, have a look at the soliton

A few photos for those who don't know the site. This is where the crane has fallen in: The access to the maintenance yard along the towpath. The crane fell in a couple of hundred feet beyond the locks. The derelict swing bridge, with the locks and maintenance yard beyond. This would be the logical place to put stop planks.

Possibly the earliest navigation lock in Europe was at Spaarndam, about twelve miles west of Amsterdam, dating from around 1150. The photo shows in as rebuilt in the 18th century. It formed a way through the embankment which held back the sea, though now is just a way between the Haarlemermeer (spelling?) and the Amsterdam Canal. The car is travelling along the road on the top of the embankment. A much larger more modern lock off to the left is the usual way for boats. There are much larger locks, such as this one at Nijmegen, which IIRC is on the Rhine-Amsterdam Canal and dates from just after the 2WW .

Peter, you should know better that being so definite, as someone will always prove you wrong. This photo shows what is possibly my favourite lock, at Tienhoven, near Utrecht. It's not really suitable for a wide beam boat, but is one of the best surviving examples of early lock technology. The canal was also used for drainage, as usual in the Netherlands, with the windmill driving a water pump.

I always think this photo of the 11th lock at Wigan gives a good idea of what towpaths were like on canals well used by horse boats. In industrial areas like this, the ashes from boiler houses supplied with coal by canal were often spread on the towpath.The ashes were removed by the boats supplying the coal and spread on the towpath by the boatmen, for which they received a bonus. The local lengthsman would tell them where he wanted the ashes spread.

The problem was that the props caught on the sloping sides at sharp bends and then tried to wind the boat out sideways. There were around a dozen boats which used the system, and with Mr Barcroft coming from Newry, the Newry Canal was the main location, though they were also tried on the Grand Canal out of Dublin. The boat tried on the L&LC does seem to have been one of the Irish ones, so the question arises as to how they crossed the Irish Sea. One trip boat, based at Newry and used on tidal waters, did use the system, so perhaps it was better in deep water. I think the one illustrated has a horizontal diesel engine on deck, but others had steam engines, and Barcroft did produce a design for using electricity, with the electric motors directly coupled to thew props. He was into electricity as he built the Bessbrook and Newry electric tramway.

I am not so sure that swathes of land with riparian rights does apply to the L&LC as the copies of survey maps, produced in the 1820s to show the company's land ownership, which I have for the canal shows that there was usually a strip held by the company on both sides. Fishing is a different matter as it can depend upon the canal's Act as well as how the land was bought. For example, the land for the first (Lower) Foulridge Reservoir was purchased by the company as agricultural land, and they sold off or leased that which was not used afterwards. Fishing rights were kept by the company, who awarded them to the Chairman, who lived nearby. When the Upper Foulridge Reservoir was built it was by agreement with the landowner, and the area of land purchased was only measured after the reservoir had been built. In this case, part of the agreement with the landowner was that he kept the fishing and hunting rights, the canal company even building two boat houses for him, one on either side of the causeway across the reservoir.

What you need is Barcroft's semi-immersed propellor. It was originally a way of converting horse boats to motor cheaply, and on paper there is not a great drop in efficiency given the low speed. One was tried on the L&LC; around the sharp bends at East Marton it tried to walk out of the canal sideways,

The following is a description of the introduction of upper gate paddles on the GJC from the Mechanics Magazine of 1834 (it's available to download on Google books). The L&LC also introduced upper gate paddles around this time, when canals were trying to speed traffic to compete with railway competition. It does raise the question of how locks should be restored today to maintain their historical integrity - as they were before or after gate paddles were added?

The crane appears to have fallen in above Dobsons Lock, just beyond the canal workshops. It is quite a tight squeeze to get there for a large crane even where the towpath forms the roadway from the swing bridge up to the workshops. There is a large turning and storage area beyond the workshops, and for some reason the crane seems to have continued beyond this on to the towpath proper. I can't see why such a large crane would travel beyond the turning area, but have not seen a good overall photo of what has happened, so can't speculate further.