Jump to content

Canal alignment avoiding existing infrastructure


magpie patrick

Featured Posts

As I work on a  lot of restoration projects I notice these schemes often have to avoid existing or even planned infrastructure - one adapts the canal line to fit a motorway, a main road or a railway, not the other way round. I also realise that historically this wasn't the case, canals were the primary infrastructure and I can cite several instances where existing roads of the day were realigned to make life easier for the canal. Sooo....

 

I was pondering whether there were instances where a canal had to be adapted to something that was already there. Off the top of my head I can only think of the Gower Branch, where it looks like the two rise at Brades is to drop the canal under the main road below the locks rather than realign the road either horizontally or vertically. 

I'm not referring to landscape or his lordships pheasant shoot - but infrastructure, which I guess would most likely be roads given generally we're talking late 18th century.

Any thoughts as to where an historic canal line had to compromise the alignment to accommodate a road or similar feature that was there first? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's not what you are asking, but here are plenty of cases where the canal has had to accommodate "improvement" of existing roads at a later date, to the detriment of the canal. For example, the A51 road bridge between Barbridge and Calverley  which adds a nasty blind bend to the canal that almost certainly wasn't there before. Ditto the road bridge just south of Saltersford tunnel. Newer roads are better: there seems to have been an era in the 50s and 60s where the bridge had to be built because closing the canal was too hard but nobody really believed that it would last, so the minimum possible to keep the canal navigable was built.

 

MP.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magpie patrick said:

I was pondering whether there were instances where a canal had to be adapted to something that was already there.

I'm not sure I would use the word "adapted" in this context, rather the canal was "designed" to accommodate something that was already there. At this distance in time we can't really know what alterations to accommodate existing infrastructure may have been considered in the canal design, but rejected before construction on grounds of cost or acceptability to the landowner etc.

But there are plenty of examples of places where the canal alignment was "adapted" to accommodate the geography, especially on the contour canals, where the route would be taken round a hill, or up one side of a valley and back down the other to avoid a large embankment crossing.

Edited by David Mack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1794 line for the L&LC would have extended further up the valley of the Hyndburn, crossing the stream at Lower Antley, where the Haslingden Canal would have started. However, Peel's printworks at Church Kirk were one of the most important industrial sites of the period, and constructiin of the canal and aqueduct would have muddied the waters of the Hyndburn, causing problems for tewtile printing. Peel asked for the line of the canal to be moved, and I have marked with dots the 'as built' line. The Petre family, who owned Dunkenhalgh, had to agree, and would only do this provided the towpath was moved to the other side of the canal so that it did not make poaching in their grounds easy. This is one of the rare occasions when a towpath is on the 'upper' side of a canal, as it usually sits on top of the embankment thrown up to create the channel. The right-angled bend at Church is a result of this alteration, something similar happening at Burnley, where the Townley family prevented the canal from crossing the road up to Townley Hall.

 

I have shown the site of the recent breach with an arrow.

1800 DDPt:20 Church.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also assume that contour canals were not part of the detail of this discussion as such canals were originally made to reduce the expense of infrastructure.

 

Soooo

 

Yes the Gower Branch would be relevant as the task was the installing a staircase pair to avoid the expense of altering the turnpike

 

I also  suppose there is the element of building expensive bridges such as for the road to Chillington Hall on the Birmingham & Liverpool Junction

 

In making the early canals accomodating the existing turnpike probably did happen and it is a matter of comparing surveys. Land purchase was an issue and there was a case with the Wyrley & Essington where there was an alteration of route west of Walsall. The Lord's Hayes Branch is another example where the canal branch never reached the plot of land called Lord's Hayes but went onto the cross under the turnpike at Newtown.

 

With the Trent and Mersey Henshall changed the route of the canal from Anderton to Preston Brook to pass through two tunnels and with the Caldon Canal the survey was influenced by commercial interests.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also continuing with the Trent and Mersey Canal theme, the Uttoxeter Canal at Uttoxeter had a wide curve to pass a water mill there. And no doubt the existence of water mills elsewhere in the country had locations that led to the routing of canals in a certain fashion. 

 

Then there are the intended canal links which were not built. When researching the Trent & Mersey Canal book, I came across the intended link from the Canal to the Weaver, for which land was purchased and whose course can be found on the Cheshire Tithe Map, and which has been discussed in a paper for the RCHS Waterways  History Group. Buying land and not building the transport link has a modern parallel with the HS 2 route to Leeds, but at the time had the potential of sending traffic from canal to river without passing through Preston Brook and seemingly was opposed by the Bridgewater Trustees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 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.