magpie patrick Posted August 15, 2019 Author Report Share Posted August 15, 2019 21 hours ago, Mike55 said: According to "A Brief History of the Wendover Arm 1793-1968" the stop lock at Little Tring was built in 1896 to protect the summit from the leaks in the Wendover Arm, the idea being that if a lightly loaded boat with a shallow draught wanted to pass it could do. Apparently this was "virtually never used", although there are records of traffic in 1897 with the canal in low water: 620 tons of manure up the arm & 500 tons of hay back. In 1904 the arm was abandoned and the stop lock was used as a convenient point to dam the arm. If we assume that the hay was always a backload to minimise empty passages, and (say) 20 tonnes a boat load for manure then it's still 31 passages through the lock each way - not a lot, but significantly more than nothing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike55 Posted August 18, 2019 Report Share Posted August 18, 2019 On 15/08/2019 at 09:46, magpie patrick said: If we assume that the hay was always a backload to minimise empty passages, and (say) 20 tonnes a boat load for manure then it's still 31 passages through the lock each way - not a lot, but significantly more than nothing! Probably more passages than that as due to the low water level above the lock boats had to be lightly loaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Mack Posted August 18, 2019 Report Share Posted August 18, 2019 28 minutes ago, Mike55 said: Probably more passages than that as due to the low water level above the lock boats had to be lightly loaded. Below the lock surely. The lock was installed to allow the level in the leaking arm to be lower than that of the summit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike55 Posted August 19, 2019 Report Share Posted August 19, 2019 21 hours ago, David Mack said: Below the lock surely. The lock was installed to allow the level in the leaking arm to be lower than that of the summit. Yes, you're right. I was thinking of it in terms of the water flow when it was built, not to mention also when it is restored. Referring to it as west of the stop lock would be less ambiguous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirweste Posted August 20, 2019 Report Share Posted August 20, 2019 There's another thread on here about the unusual lock design; both width and balance beam. I always attributed the beams being at differing side to be something to do with the locking being manned or not. I never understood why they made them wider though. The arm was build narrow to save water; it had no feeds other than the GJC. So then why would you build the locks to a slightly wider than normal width - using/wasting extra water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEngo Posted August 20, 2019 Report Share Posted August 20, 2019 Wider locks have more scope to move naturally without jamming a boat as the ground settles, heaves or otherwise works over time. An extra few inches width costs little extra to build and very little extra water. Each extra inch of width on a nominal 7ft wide lock is a little more than 1% extra water. N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now