Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
larrysanders

Highest lock pound in Britain?

Featured Posts

23 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

There must be two, surely?

There used to be only one when it was Titford

  • Happy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was always told that at 518 feet above sea level the Macclesfield pound was the highest.

Certainly when we moored there it was the first to freeze, trapped us at Poynton once for 2 weeks, luckily next to the coal boat. We had only gone up to deliver a new  shell. Next morning the ice was well thick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

32W and 42E as has already been said

 

From memory the locks on the east are slightly deeper, so for us pedants who delight in meaningless trivia the pound between 31W and 32W is the highest pound on the system that isn't a summit.

 

The pound below Marple top lock is lower than the Titford Summit 

 

I'm wondering what the lowest summit is and having a guess it's probably the Fossdyke... :help::offtopic: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 

 

The pound below Marple top lock is lower than the Titford Summit  

  

 

That's because Marple locks are deep. 

 

I believe the Rochdale summit is the next highest after the HNC with the Macclesfield / Peak Forest in third place and Titford a close fourth

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

I'm wondering what the lowest summit is and having a guess it's probably the Fossdyke... :help::offtopic: 

Or maybe the Gloucester and Sharpness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay - one other question referring to both the Huddersfield Narrow and Broad Canal.  Why would a canal company build shorter locks - like they did on the broad canal at 57.5ft long?  Would they have modeled the lock size around the size of their boats - or did they do it to make it difficult for competitors boats/routes?    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, larrysanders said:

Okay - one other question referring to both the Huddersfield Narrow and Broad Canal.  Why would a canal company build shorter locks - like they did on the broad canal at 57.5ft long?  Would they have modeled the lock size around the size of their boats - or did they do it to make it difficult for competitors boats/routes?    

The former, I would imagine; either that or they foresaw the future clonecraft traffic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Alway Swilby said:

And this begs the question which is the higest sump pound? I'd guess Milton Keynes.

I was going to say the Walsall at 416 feet but then remembered about the Tame Valley drain....

so yes, 246 feet - until they start digging the bedford mk link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never heard of a "sump pound". I would imagine that it's a pound between two locks, both of which rise. Is that it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Athy said:

I have never heard of a "sump pound". I would imagine that it's a pound between two locks, both of which rise. Is that it?

It is, and there aren't very many of them - Wolverton, Warwick, Burgeddin on the Montgomery, most of the Middle Level and most of the Witham Navigable Drains - I think that's it? There are one or two dead end ones as well. 

35 minutes ago, larrysanders said:

Okay - one other question referring to both the Huddersfield Narrow and Broad Canal.  Why would a canal company build shorter locks - like they did on the broad canal at 57.5ft long?  Would they have modeled the lock size around the size of their boats - or did they do it to make it difficult for competitors boats/routes?    

Broad  Canal was built first to match the Calder and Hebble. The Narrow Canal would have been way too difficult to make broad and I guess that in making it narrow it made sense for it to match the Ashton rather than have narrow and short locks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, larrysanders said:

Okay - one other question referring to both the Huddersfield Narrow and Broad Canal.  Why would a canal company build shorter locks - like they did on the broad canal at 57.5ft long?  Would they have modeled the lock size around the size of their boats - or did they do it to make it difficult for competitors boats/routes?    

Narrow canals were built where the promoters were trying to keep down costs - it is about a third cheaper to build a narrow canal as opposed to a wide one, the main saving being in the price of land. In the late 18th century, few people knew if canals were going to be a financial success, so many canal promoters in the Midlands looked at narrow canals as the most cost-effective way forward. This may have been because their canals were, to a great extent, isolated from coastal seas. In Lancashire and Yorkshire, they were much closer to the seas, so they had more incentive to build canals suitable for coastal vessels, despite the additional cost. You have to bear in mind that our canals were not built as a system, but as a solution to local or regional transport problems. Only the narrow canals had much in the way of through traffic, with boats passing over several canals when making a single journey. 

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

It is, and there aren't very many of them - Wolverton, Warwick, Burgeddin on the Montgomery, most of the Middle Level and most of the Witham Navigable Drains - I think that's it? There are one or two dead end ones as well. 

What about the Bridgwater (inc both Leigh Branches and the N end of the T &M)? It is a pound whence all the locks go up albeit not all of it is part of one canal.

Of course if the Runcorn flight is restored it will cease to be a sump.

 

N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, magpie patrick said:

It is, and there aren't very many of them - Wolverton, Warwick, Burgeddin on the Montgomery, most of the Middle Level and most of the Witham Navigable Drains - I think that's it? There are one or two dead end ones as well. 

I suppose you could almost include the Coventry and Ashby when Junction Lock is stop planked up for repairs - The excess T&M water is taken out above Fradley Junction and rejoins below after going through through the lake behind the MuckyDuck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, BEngo said:

What about the Bridgwater (inc both Leigh Branches and the N end of the T &M)? It is a pound whence all the locks go up albeit not all of it is part of one canal.

Of course if the Runcorn flight is restored it will cease to be a sump.

 

N

Almost but not quite - Pomona Lock lets you down onto the Irwell/Manchester Ship Canal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pluto said:

Narrow canals were built where the promoters were trying to keep down costs - it is about a third cheaper to build a narrow canal as opposed to a wide one, the main saving being in the price of land. In the late 18th century, few people knew if canals were going to be a financial success, so many canal promoters in the Midlands looked at narrow canals as the most cost-effective way forward. This may have been because their canals were, to a great extent, isolated from coastal seas. In Lancashire and Yorkshire, they were much closer to the seas, so they had more incentive to build canals suitable for coastal vessels, despite the additional cost. You have to bear in mind that our canals were not built as a system, but as a solution to local or regional transport problems. Only the narrow canals had much in the way of through traffic, with boats passing over several canals when making a single journey. 

That's really useful information - many thanks.  I never thought about the land costs - just construction, but that makes perfect sense.  I just wondered why these locks were around 60 feet in length?  Somewhat shorter than other narrow and broad canals.  Do you think it was to accommodate a certain type of boat then?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.