British Waterways Board re-branding the Waterway

[Heartland]

The thread in Lost Canals diverged to talk about the origins of the names Southern and Northern Oxford. I did wonder if the name change came through a policy to re-brand sections of canals to suit the leisure trade. For the Oxford Napton Junction was chosen as the separation point between Northern & Southern sections. It would be of use to note if BW organisation reflected this change.

Another example of re-branding concerns the Llangollen Canal, which has been discussed before on this website. That was a positive decision that appears to have been made  at some point, to give a new name to the part of the Shropshire Union/ Ellesmere & Chester.

 

The BW guides are now useful heritage guides for this time.

 

The Southern Oxford Guide has the following map:

 

 

[Pluto]

Was it more to do with dividing BW by region? The two ends of the Oxford came under different managers.

[magpie patrick]

This is third edition first impression - not sure of dates but it's published by British Transport (Waterways) 

[GilesMorris]

3 hours ago, Pluto said:

Was it more to do with dividing BW by region? The two ends of the Oxford came under different managers.

The regional approach also showed up in the cruising guides (plural) for the Staffs & Worcs. When I became wealthy enough to buy the guide I was bitterly disappointed to find that it covered only Stourport to Autherley (Aldersley?), and I needed to buy the Trent & Mersey guide to cover my home section in Penkridge. Did the regions really hate each other so much that they couldn't work together on a book?

[Ronaldo47]

Was there a reason for the 1968 map seemingly indicating that the Grand Union main line north of Berkhamstead was narrow? 

[frangar]

1 minute ago, Ronaldo47 said:

Was there a reason for the 1968 map seemingly indicating that the Grand Union main line north of Berkhamstead was narrow? 

Because essentially it is! The locks fit a pair of boats....it’s not designed for two widebeam craft to pass....something that would be good to be enforced in the present day. 

[Ronaldo47]

Thanks for your comment. The furthest South I have ventured is Cosgrove, so I wondered if there had been some blockage at the time. My 1975 edition of Nicholsons guide Vol 1 mentions that there used to be problems with water shortage north of Berkhamsted due to the short 3 mile summit, but its notes about the need for broad beam boats to give BW advance warning of their intention to use the Blisworth and Braunston tunnels so that they could be closed to craft coming the other way, clearly shows that access by broad beam craft was possible and permissable. While I have never seen any on the move, I have seen the occasional one moored up over the years, including one on the Oxford a mile or so South of Napton Junction a decade or so ago.

Edited August 16, 2020 by Ronaldo47
Typo

[Ray T]

Referring to post #1.

 

From the DVD Canal in the 50's with film by Ralph Lee, it is interesting that the Llangollen is referred to as "The Welsh Canal."

 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Ray T

[frangar]

23 minutes ago, Ray T said:

Referring to post #1.

 

From the DVD Canal in the 50's with film by Ralph Lee, it is interesting that the Llangollen is referred to as "The Welsh Canal."

 

It’s still referred to as “The Welsh” by quite a few boaters I know. 

[Ray T]

Just now, frangar said:

It’s still referred to as “The Welsh” by quite a few boaters I know. 

As a side when I visit "my historic narrowboat captain" I have to use canal related names he is familiar with or he doesn't know what I am talking about.

 

e.g. Hillmorton Locks not Grantham's Bridge. Or Moira cut, not The Ashby.

[frangar]

1 minute ago, Ray T said:

As a side when I visit "my historic narrowboat captain" I have to use canal related names he is familiar with or he doesn't know what I am talking about.

 

e.g. Hillmorton Locks not Grantham's Bridge. Or Moira cut, not The Ashby.

Quite right too!!! Otherwise history is lost....

[Ronaldo47]

On looking at my Nicolson in more detail (it's actually a 1975 printing of the 1973 edition), the introduction to the Grand Union section gives the Regents Canal max width dimension  as 14' 6", Brentford and Paddington to Birmingham Camp Hill top lock as 12' 6", and Market Harborough to Leicester as 10'.  However, the 1968 BW map shows the Regents canal and the main line up to Berkhamsted in the same colour.  The resolution is inadequate to read what the colours represent, so despite what Nicolson says, possibly the section as far as Berkhamsted was also cleared for 14'  6" vessels rather than 12' 6",  and BW's defintion of "broad" means 14' or wider. Conversely,  I see that my 1976 Imray canal map, which shows the Grand Union up to Birmingham as "broad", defines "broad" as wider than 7', so possibly my confusion arose from different definitions of what constitutes a broad canal.  

 

 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Ronaldo47
Typo

[Keeping Up]

8 hours ago, frangar said:

Because essentially it is! The locks fit a pair of boats....it’s not designed for two widebeam craft to pass....something that would be good to be enforced in the present day. 

Indeed. The underwater profile of the canal is different south from north of Berkhamstead, with the deepest part of the channel narrower to the north.

[Captain Pegg]

On 17/08/2020 at 02:38, Keeping Up said:

Indeed. The underwater profile of the canal is different south from north of Berkhamstead, with the deepest part of the channel narrower to the north.

Albeit only because the dredged profile from Berkhamsted to Braunston has been maintained that way for many decades based upon historic usage.

Edited August 18, 2020 by Captain Pegg

[Keeping Up]

2 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Albeit only because the dredged profile has been maintained that way for many decades based upon historic usage.

Surely the base profile is that defined by the original puddled clay base of the canal? Certainly from what little I can remember when I saw them many years ago, the original plans for the canal showed different profiles north and south of Berkhamstead. The nominal overall canal width is the same (45ft) but IIRC the deep channel was 21ft wide above Berkhamstead and 28ft south of it. I think.

[Captain Pegg]

2 minutes ago, Keeping Up said:

Surely the base profile is that defined by the original puddled clay base of the canal? Certainly from what little I can remember when I saw them many years ago, the original plans for the canal showed different profiles north and south of Berkhamstead. The nominal overall canal width is the same (45ft) but IIRC the deep channel was 21ft wide above Berkhamstead and 28ft south of it. I think.

This has been discussed previously on the forum in relation to suitability for widebeams and I have more than once asked for evidence that the GJC was constructed to different dimensions either side of Berkhamsted and none has been forthcoming.
 

Therefore on the basis of some evidence that the width of the canal itself is consistent the assumption was that usage was the factor driving the change in designation since it is known that widebeam boats routinely worked to Berkhamsted but not beyond, and that the dredged profiles were maintained differently.
 

Hence you may have shed some light on the subject and it would be interesting to know if the above can be confirmed. It had been suggested that the influence of Tring cutting and the two major tunnels was a potential factor in historic usage, it seems their influence may perhaps be a little more direct than that in respect of the canal itself.

 

JP

[Keeping Up]

I had sight of the original plans when, on behalf of the Milton Keynes IWA, I surveyed the precise positions of all the mileposts between MK and Slapton during their reinstatement program. I cannot remember who got hold of the plans, or from where, but it may be worth contacting MK IWA about it.

[BWM]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

This has been discussed previously on the forum in relation to suitability for widebeams and I have more than once asked for evidence that the GJC was constructed to different dimensions either side of Berkhamsted and none has been forthcoming.
 

Therefore on the basis of some evidence that the width of the canal itself is consistent the assumption was that usage was the factor driving the change in designation since it is known that widebeam boats routinely worked to Berkhamsted but not beyond, and that the dredged profiles were maintained differently.
 

Hence you may have shed some light on the subject and it would be interesting to know if the above can be confirmed. It had been suggested that the influence of Tring cutting and the two major tunnels was a potential factor in historic usage, it seems their influence may perhaps be a little more direct than that in respect of the canal itself.

 

JP

The tring cutting has sloping stone at the sides leading away from the channel, similar but not the same as those on the north Oxford. I believe this (the tring cutting) is where the 30's wide beam experiment proved unworkable. 

[Keeping Up]

16 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

This has been discussed previously on the forum in relation to suitability for widebeams and I have more than once asked for evidence that the GJC was constructed to different dimensions either side of Berkhamsted and none has been forthcoming.
 

Therefore on the basis of some evidence that the width of the canal itself is consistent the assumption was that usage was the factor driving the change in designation since it is known that widebeam boats routinely worked to Berkhamsted but not beyond, and that the dredged profiles were maintained differently.
 

Hence you may have shed some light on the subject and it would be interesting to know if the above can be confirmed. It had been suggested that the influence of Tring cutting and the two major tunnels was a potential factor in historic usage, it seems their influence may perhaps be a little more direct than that in respect of the canal itself.

 

JP

My memory woke up with me this morning (not sure it will help you though) and I recall now, it was at a meeting with BW at their Marsworth offices, when we were discussing the milepost project with them. We took the opportunity to include Dredging on the agenda and get an undertaking that, wherever it was practicable to do so, their dredging operations would aim to restore the canal to its original profile. For that meeting they produced their copies of the original maps.

[Captain Pegg]

On 19/08/2020 at 08:26, Keeping Up said:

My memory woke up with me this morning (not sure it will help you though) and I recall now, it was at a meeting with BW at their Marsworth offices, when we were discussing the milepost project with them. We took the opportunity to include Dredging on the agenda and get an undertaking that, wherever it was practicable to do so, their dredging operations would aim to restore the canal to its original profile. For that meeting they produced their copies of the original maps.

That’s great, thanks. More than convincing enough to answer the question I’ve posed on the forum before.

Looking at the dredging dimensions they are 9.00m south of Berkhamsted and 7.60m north thereof which equates to 29.5’ and 25’.

 

JP

 

[Keeping Up]

Great.

 

Of course they also sabotaged the wide beam experiment, by deliberately scheduling it to coincide with some bridge maintenance work (at Buckby I think) which just happened to reduce the navigable width to 7ft for a day or two. Brilliant!

[Tam & Di]

On 18/08/2020 at 17:05, BWM said:

The tring cutting has sloping stone at the sides leading away from the channel, similar but not the same as those on the north Oxford. I believe this (the tring cutting) is where the 30's wide beam experiment proved unworkable. 

GUCCC's Progress was 12'6" and as I've noted before we took her to Samson Road on one occasion, and to Braunston several times. The only problem we had was one bridge at Leamington, but that was more to do with the fact I raised to coamings about 9" with my conversion. Even when we moved into freight narrowboats in the 70s it was still possible for two boats to pass each other in most bridgeholes, but obviously that would not be possible with Progress or FMC's wideboat, and as there was still substantial traffic in the 30s it was quickly realised that all the bridges would have to be rebuilt for wideboats to be successful. The tunnels would obviously always be a pinch point too.

 

Tam

 

[BWM]

16 hours ago, Tam & Di said:

GUCCC's Progress was 12'6" and as I've noted before we took her to Samson Road on one occasion, and to Braunston several times. The only problem we had was one bridge at Leamington, but that was more to do with the fact I raised to coamings about 9" with my conversion. Even when we moved into freight narrowboats in the 70s it was still possible for two boats to pass each other in most bridgeholes, but obviously that would not be possible with Progress or FMC's wideboat, and as there was still substantial traffic in the 30s it was quickly realised that all the bridges would have to be rebuilt for wideboats to be successful. The tunnels would obviously always be a pinch point too.

 

Tam

 

Thanks Tam, it was the passing of two such craft in that location, rather than Progress or similar individual boats but my post ended up a little vague by omission!