End on junctions (and stop locks!)

[magpie patrick]

11 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Agreed that river navigations don’t really count which would rule out Droitwich since the two canals never directly joined. They were a lot closer than the current arrangements but always separated by a short section of river navigation.

 

 

Technically the junction between the two is in Vines Park just below the Barge Lock - the Barge Lock is on the Junction Canal apparently - it took me a while to get my head round this when I was managing the HLF grant! I went around mumbling "Barge lock not on the barge canal..." until I got it 

[Captain Pegg]

13 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

Technically the junction between the two is in Vines Park just below the Barge Lock - the Barge Lock is on the Junction Canal apparently - it took me a while to get my head round this when I was managing the HLF grant! I went around mumbling "Barge lock not on the barge canal..." until I got it 

OK. I was thinking they were separate entities that each joined the Salwarpe but thinking about it the barge lock wouldn’t have been required prior to the construction of the Droitwich Junction Canal so I assume it was constructed as part of that canal hence the situation you describe. The widened canal at the east end of Vines Park is technically Droitwich Town Wharf (or something like that) so that is presumably the original basin at the end of the Droitwich Canal Navigation (that’s now commonly called the Barge Canal). Whether it’s a wide lock to aid the passage of barges or because it’s primary function is as a flood lock I don’t know. I’d suspect the latter as it seems unlikely a Severn trow could have made passage above the lock even to Hanbury Road basin.

 

It’s complicated by the massive amount of change that has taken place over the years.

 

JP

Edited July 20, 2019 by Captain Pegg

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

The Rochdale doesn’t quite meet the end of the C&H does it? As you say it runs to the south side of the C&H terminus basin and joins just east of the basin so therefore not truly end on end but still a through navigation without an obvious junction. 

 

It looked like a pretty obvious junction to me when I passed through ( in both directions) a few weeks back. 

[magpie patrick]

So, we've four definite end-on junctions I think

 

Stourbridge to Dudley at the bottom of Delph

Bridgwater/L&L at Leigh (but it has moved a few hundred yards)

Arun/Wey and Arun

Droitwich/Droitwich Junction

 

In all four cases the first named would make sense without the other - at Leigh, arguably both canals make sense in isolation as they could both be serving Leigh, but the Bridgewater came first

 

(Pidcocks/Lydney is one I'm still trying to get my head round!)

 

And several others where there is an end on junction but only because for some reason one company built anything from a few yards to a five miles (and up to seven locks) of someone else's route - I think these are

 

Wardle

Hall Green

Whittington

Johnson's Hillock

 

There may be others....

 

[David Mack]

7 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

So, we've four definite end-on junctions I think

 

Stourbridge to Dudley at the bottom of Delph

Bridgwater/L&L at Leigh (but it has moved a few hundred yards)

Arun/Wey and Arun

Droitwich/Droitwich Junction

 

In all four cases the first named would make sense without the other - at Leigh, arguably both canals make sense in isolation as they could both be serving Leigh, but the Bridgewater came first

 

(Pidcocks/Lydney is one I'm still trying to get my head round!)

 

And several others where there is an end on junction but only because for some reason one company built anything from a few yards to a five miles (and up to seven locks) of someone else's route - I think these are

 

Wardle

Hall Green

Whittington

Johnson's Hillock

 

There may be others....

 

Preston Brook?

 

Also Castlefield, where the bottom lock of the Rochdale 9 is (was?) technically part of the Bridgewater Canal.

 

And there was an end-on junction between the Upper Avon and Lower Avon before the two navigation trusts merged.

Edited July 20, 2019 by David Mack

[Captain Pegg]

17 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

It looked like a pretty obvious junction to me when I passed through ( in both directions) a few weeks back. 

My knowledge of that area is from walking the towpath in the days prior to the Rochdale reopening. It’s one reason I put a question mark on my original post.

 

JP

[hughc]

As Tom has said the Erewash joins the Cromford with an end on junction just below the Cromford's bottom lock. Above this lock the Nottingham and Cromford meet with both having a basin at  the junction separated only by a stop lock.  Regards, HughC.

[magpie patrick]

9 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Preston Brook?

 

Also Castlefield, where the bottom lock of the Rochdale 9 is (was?) technically part of the Bridgewater Canal.

 

And there was an end-on junction between the Upper Avon and Lower Avon before the two navigation trusts merged.

 

3 minutes ago, hughc said:

As Tom has said the Erewash joins the Cromford with an end on junction just below the Cromford's bottom lock. Above this lock the Nottingham and Cromford meet with both having a basin at  the junction separated only by a stop lock.  Regards, HughC.

 

14 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

So, we've four six definite end-on junctions I think

 

Stourbridge to Dudley at the bottom of Delph

Bridgwater/L&L at Leigh (but it has moved a few hundred yards)

Arun/Wey and Arun

Droitwich/Droitwich Junction

Bridgewater/T&M Preston Brook

Erewash/Cromford

 

Amended

 

Rivers don't count - they're going to be in-line/end-on if one river is divided between two operators

 

Not sure about Castlefield - Bradshaw 1904 dertainly lists lock 92 under "Rochdale" which means any toll would have been payable to them

[David Mack]

8 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

And there was an end-on junction between the Upper Avon and Lower Avon before the two navigation trusts merged.

 

Thinking about it, there are several places on rivers where the navigation authority changes. Do these count as end-on junctions?

 

River Thames - EA/PLA

River Trent - CRT/ABP

River Avon - CRT/Port of Bristol

River Cam - Cam Commissioners/EA

7 minutes ago, hughc said:

As Tom has said the Erewash joins the Cromford with an end on junction just below the Cromford's bottom lock. Above this lock the Nottingham and Cromford meet with both having a basin at  the junction separated only by a stop lock.  Regards, HughC.

 

But wasn't there originally a terminal basin for the Erewash to the west of the current line, making this originally a T-junction?

[David Mack]

36 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

It looked like a pretty obvious junction to me when I passed through ( in both directions) a few weeks back. 

 

[magpie patrick]

10 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

 

But wasn't there originally a terminal basin for the Erewash to the west of the current line, making this originally a T-junction?

Magpie's head is beginning to spin, and he is wondering whether it was wise to start this thread...

 

Yes, I think you're right - it's one of the reasons end-on junctions are so rare, logically there has to be a terminal basin, and logically it will often be in the way of another canal going onwards. 

[Chris Lowe]

If we start to throw in Irish canals:

Coalisland canal/Dukarts canal.

--------------------------------------------

Coalport canal/Donnington Wood canal.

Forth & Clyde canal/Monkland canal.

 

Edited July 20, 2019 by buccaneer66

[Pluto]

57 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 

 

 

Amended

 

Rivers don't count - they're going to be in-line/end-on if one river is divided between two operators

 

Not sure about Castlefield - Bradshaw 1904 dertainly lists lock 92 under "Rochdale" which means any toll would have been payable to them

Lock 92 was definitely a Bridgewater lock and was used for taking the agreed toll for accessing the Bridgewater. The design details on this lock are unlike any of the other Rochdale locks. The water used here passed through a tunnel under the Castlefield section, and emerged into the Bridgewater beyond the stop lock at Hulme, thus supplying the canal with much cleaner water than came down the Medlock.

[AndrewIC]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

Preston Brook?

I’d have to dig the books out to check, but I though the Bridgewater main line was to Runcorn and (pre-MSC) the river, and that the line to Preston Brook was a built as a branch to join the new T&M? Possibly it was extended from a basin or wharf arm at PB? The canal was also fed by The Preston Brook, but I don’t know exactly where that came in. The junction used to be at the north end of the tunnel, but the tunnel was extended northwards at some point and is now technically inside the tunnel.

 

This discussion prompts a question about stop locks: I thought stop locks were built at junctions on the insistence of the older company, to prevent their water being “stolen” by the newer. That makes sense at Dutton, in that the T&M is slightly higher than the Bridgewater, so the water flows that way. However, Dutton stop has only one set of gates at each end, and shows no sign of ever having had two opposing sets (unlike Hall Green on the Macc, so if the the long pound of the T&M became short of water and dropped more than a couple of inches, the gates would swing open and the Bridgewater would “back feed” the T&M. Ditto Autherley Stop. Why?

[captain birdseye]

Ashton Canal to the Huddersfield Narrow. The junction is at the wharf below lock 1 West the Ashton canal continuing beyond it's junction with the Lower Peak Forest at Dukinfield Junction

[magpie patrick]

4 hours ago, Pluto said:

Lock 92 was definitely a Bridgewater lock and was used for taking the agreed toll for accessing the Bridgewater. The design details on this lock are unlike any of the other Rochdale locks. The water used here passed through a tunnel under the Castlefield section, and emerged into the Bridgewater beyond the stop lock at Hulme, thus supplying the canal with much cleaner water than came down the Medlock.

But where does that put the junction? Above the lock? Below the lock? Or in it? I guess a boat going from the Bridgwater towards lock 91 would also pay a toll? There are still a few locks where one must hold two licenses to pass (Bancroft and lock 17 on the Northampton arm for example) but they firmly belong to the canal at the upper end. Would a boat entering lock 92 from above, but not going down, have been liable for a toll to the Bridgwater?

 

The water arrangements at lock 92care intriguing but they only replicate what would happen if the Bridgwater hadn't needed a clean water supply beyond hulme locks. 

 

Whatever special arrangements were made it is numbered 92con the Rochdale, which suggest it belonged to them?

[magpie patrick]

3 hours ago, AndrewIC said:

I’d have to dig the books out to check, but I though the Bridgewater main line was to Runcorn and (pre-MSC) the river, and that the line to Preston Brook was a built as a branch to join the new T&M? Possibly it was extended from a basin or wharf arm at PB? The canal was also fed by The Preston Brook, but I don’t know exactly where that came in. The junction used to be at the north end of the tunnel, but the tunnel was extended northwards at some point and is now technically inside the tunnel.

 

This discussion prompts a question about stop locks: I thought stop locks were built at junctions on the insistence of the older company, to prevent their water being “stolen” by the newer. That makes sense at Dutton, in that the T&M is slightly higher than the Bridgewater, so the water flows that way. However, Dutton stop has only one set of gates at each end, and shows no sign of ever having had two opposing sets (unlike Hall Green on the Macc, so if the the long pound of the T&M became short of water and dropped more than a couple of inches, the gates would swing open and the Bridgewater would “back feed” the T&M. Ditto Autherley Stop. Why?

Stop locks are a whole new ball game! They weren't that common, when one thinks how many junctions there were, and I think the idea that the "new" canal is higher is a myth - it was the canal that was descending to the junction that was higher, and in most, but not all, cases that was the newer one. 

 

A stop lock meant that the higher canal had to leak quite a bit before water was taken from the lower one. At Autherley junction, where the new canal is lower  both canals are at their summit, which meant the Shropshire Union had to find it's own water and not snaffle the S&W supply. On the other three surviving examples, the higher canal was at its lowest level and had no requirement for the water, but the lower canal couldn't afford risk of losses through leakage.

[David Mack]

3 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

On the other three surviving examples, the higher canal was at its lowest level and had no requirement for the water, but the lower canal couldn't afford risk of losses through leakage.

 

But the later, higher canal didn't always want to give its water to the older canal. At Braunston the Grand Junction arranged for water from the bottom lock to drain into the reservoirs, so it could be pumped back up to the top of the flight, rather than letting the Oxford Canal have it.

[Pluto]

13 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

But where does that put the junction? Above the lock? Below the lock? Or in it? I guess a boat going from the Bridgwater towards lock 91 would also pay a toll? There are still a few locks where one must hold two licenses to pass (Bancroft and lock 17 on the Northampton arm for example) but they firmly belong to the canal at the upper end. Would a boat entering lock 92 from above, but not going down, have been liable for a toll to the Bridgwater?

 

The water arrangements at lock 92care intriguing but they only replicate what would happen if the Bridgwater hadn't needed a clean water supply beyond hulme locks. 

 

Whatever special arrangements were made it is numbered 92con the Rochdale, which suggest it belonged to them?

This is the relevant section from the Rochdale Act, repealed in 1899.

[magpie patrick]

32 minutes ago, Pluto said:

This is the relevant section from the Rochdale Act, repealed in 1899.

 

Intriguing - oh what tangled webs etc!

 

Does that mean it became the Rochdale's lock after 1899?

10 hours ago, David Mack said:

 

But the later, higher canal didn't always want to give its water to the older canal. At Braunston the Grand Junction arranged for water from the bottom lock to drain into the reservoirs, so it could be pumped back up to the top of the flight, rather than letting the Oxford Canal have it.

Braunston is a peculiar case as the GJC felt they had had poor value from water coming down Braunston Locks, they really wanted as much water as possible going the other way towards Cosgrove. Not dissimilar to Crofton on the K and A. 

 

Whatever, stop locks are water control devices and the direction of fall seems to have been determined by topography not by primacy of the owners 

 

 

[Captain Pegg]

15 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

Stop locks are a whole new ball game! They weren't that common, when one thinks how many junctions there were, and I think the idea that the "new" canal is higher is a myth - it was the canal that was descending to the junction that was higher, and in most, but not all, cases that was the newer one. 

 

A stop lock meant that the higher canal had to leak quite a bit before water was taken from the lower one. At Autherley junction, where the new canal is lower  both canals are at their summit, which meant the Shropshire Union had to find it's own water and not snaffle the S&W supply. On the other three surviving examples, the higher canal was at its lowest level and had no requirement for the water, but the lower canal couldn't afford risk of losses through leakage.

The three others being Hawkesbury, Hall Green and Dutton? And a half for King’s Norton maybe?

 

There are a lot more than that which have been removed so I’m not sure they were that rare. Marston, Proof House, Nechells, Salford, Tipton and Horseley Fields all have evidence that suggests there was a stop lock and in some of those cases it’s known that there was. Some may have been toll narrows. (Which has just led to the thought that the stop lock perhaps had more to do with preventing passage for the purpose of collecting tolls than it did with water levels). Logically there cannot have been a meaningful difference in levels where the stop lock has been removed.

 

It’s probable that only four remain because there is an insurmountable change of level of those locations. There is also a pretty decent number of junctions where one canal locks down fully into another canal. How many of those involve the newer canal locking down from the older?

 

JP

[David Mack]

15 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

There is also a pretty decent number of junctions where one canal locks down fully into another canal. How many of those involve the newer canal locking down from the older?

 

Napton, Frogall (Caldon and Uttoxeter Canals) come to mind. Also, did the Nottingham Canal come later than the Cromford at Langley Mill?

 

In general the canal network was constructed as incremental extensions from the river navigations, so extending successively towards higher ground. So there won't be many places where the later canal drops down.

[Captain Pegg]

8 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

Napton, Frogall (Caldon and Uttoxeter Canals) come to mind. Also, did the Nottingham Canal come later than the Cromford at Langley Mill?

 

In general the canal network was constructed as incremental extensions from the river navigations, so extending successively towards higher ground. So there won't be many places where the later canal drops down.

Ah Napton, Wiggerham’s Turn, I should have twigged that. I was only refreshing myself on it’s history the other day.

 

I have thought of at least one example but I’ll worry about that later. I’ve got work to do on a boat right now. Amazing, I know. ?

 

JP

[magpie patrick]

30 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

The three others being Hawkesbury, Hall Green and Dutton? And a half for King’s Norton maybe?

 

There are a lot more than that which have been removed so I’m not sure they were that rare. Marston, Proof House, Nechells, Salford, Tipton and Horseley Fields all have evidence that suggests there was a stop lock and in some of those cases it’s known that there was. Some may have been toll narrows. (Which has just led to the thought that the stop lock perhaps had more to do with preventing passage for the purpose of collecting tolls than it did with water levels). Logically there cannot have been a meaningful difference in levels where the stop lock has been removed.

 

It’s probable that only four remain because there is an insurmountable change of level of those locations. There is also a pretty decent number of junctions where one canal locks down fully into another canal. How many of those involve the newer canal locking down from the older?

 

JP

Glad to see a fellow geek nutter enthusiast who delights in such detail!

 

Junctions and stop locks may need a new thread, but... 

 

I know of the following that definitely had a change of level

 

Masrton* - Ashby/Coventry

Neachels - Birmingham and Warwick Junction/Birmingham and Fazeley

Warwick Bar* - Warwick and Birmingham/B&F Digbeth branch

Kings' Norton - Stratford/Worcs and Brum

Dundas#  - Coal Canal/K&A

 

* these were designed to work either way, and Warwick Bar has a two-way bywash!

# Dundas had (and still has) a third gate facing the other way in case the coal canal breaches

 

 

Others I'm less sure had a change , Marple, Horsley Fields etc

 

I'm not even sure I can picture the Tipton one

 

 

 

Just to add - the original point was that it wasn't newness that dictated the higher canal, but topography, and yes I think the survivors are because the adjustments to correct the levels are impractical, it is notable that all connect lengthy, in some cases very lengthy, canal levels

[Captain Pegg]

6 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

Glad to see a fellow geek nutter enthusiast who delights in such detail!

 

Junctions and stop locks may need a new thread, but... 

 

I know of the following that definitely had a change of level

 

Masrton* - Ashby/Coventry

Neachels - Birmingham and Warwick Junction/Birmingham and Fazeley

Warwick Bar* - Warwick and Birmingham/B&F Digbeth branch

Kings' Norton - Stratford/Worcs and Brum

Dundas#  - Coal Canal/K&A

 

* these were designed to work either way, and Warwick Bar has a two-way bywash!

# Dundas had (and still has) a third gate facing the other way in case the coal canal breaches

 

 

Others I'm less sure had a change , Marple, Horsley Fields etc

 

I'm not even sure I can picture the Tipton one

 

 

 

Just to add - the original point was that it wasn't newness that dictated the higher canal, but topography, and yes I think the survivors are because the adjustments to correct the levels are impractical, it is notable that all connect lengthy, in some cases very lengthy, canal levels

Tipton Junction - meeting of Birmingham Canal (old line) and Dudley Canal. Not to be confused with Factory Junction.

 

JP