Beeston Iron Lock

[Heartland]

Those who pass through this grade II* listed structure, often notice the unique iron sides to the lock and the footbridge over made of iron. but may not realise that there is a hidden part of underpinning ironwork.

 

Waterways Archives at Ellesmere Port have some interesting images showing the drained lock including

 

 

This image shows the two circular outlets from the ground paddle tubes

 

Images of the spillway are more rarer. This lock bears the date of 1828, although work on  canal alterations were begun in 1827. This lock replaced the original two lock riser at this location. The riser was affected by subsidence and Telford's original solution was the iron lock. A recent discussion (RCHS) has led to suggesting the location of the riser, or part of it, being placed at the site of the spill weir. Images of the spillway would be appreciated to test that theory.

 

[PaulJ]

Great pic- wasnt many days ago when I was wondering about the culverts on this

 

[nbfiresprite]

Not a lock to be in, if Mr helpful shuts the bottom gate after you enter. Walks off leaving you to sudden nctice that there is no ladder in the lock.

[PaulJ]

46 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said:

Not a lock to be in, if Mr helpful shuts the bottom gate after you enter. Walks off leaving you to sudden nctice that there is no ladder in the lock.

Probably not the best lock to fall in empty either..

[MtB]

49 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said:

Not a lock to be in, if Mr helpful shuts the bottom gate after you enter. Walks off leaving you to sudden nctice that there is no ladder in the lock.

 

The missing ladder only matters if you are single-handing I'd have thought, and the exact same problem persists if Mr Helpful happens not to be there, doesn't it?!

[David Mack]

A particular problem as the footbridge makes pulling the boat in or out more difficult.

[nbfiresprite]

7 hours ago, MtB said:

 

The missing ladder only matters if you are single-handing I'd have thought, and the exact same problem persists if Mr Helpful happens not to be there, doesn't it?!

 

If the bottom gate is still open, just back out the lock and than haul the boat in from the side. Which is what I normaly do if there is no bridge over the lock rather than use the ladder. I had to climb up the lock gate to get out, if it had been a metal lock gate I would have been stuck for sometime, little boat movement in winter on the Chester canal in the 1980's

Edited March 28, 2022 by nbfiresprite

[MtB]

6 hours ago, nbfiresprite said:

 

If the bottom gate is still open, just back out the lock and than haul the boat in from the side. Which is what I normaly do if there is no bridge over the lock rather than use the ladder. I had to climb up the lock gate to get out, if it had been a metal lock gate I would have been stuck for sometime, little boat movement in winter on the Chester canal in the 1980's

 

Ah yes I see, thanks! 

[Derek R.]

A lock I remember well. We were boating down. The bottom gate paddles had been lifted and we proceeded to drop. Then we got hung up. The tiniest bit of weld in the form of a 'nib' on one of the counter round rubbing strakes had caught on the iron lock side - the middle longitudinal overlapping piece in the photo. Getting that gear down was the next issue - so slow! The boat eventually 'fell off' and we bobbed about quite a bit.

[enigmatic]

On 27/03/2022 at 17:56, Heartland said:

Images of the spillway are more rarer. This lock bears the date of 1828, although work on  canal alterations were begun in 1827. This lock replaced the original two lock riser at this location. The riser was affected by subsidence and Telford's original solution was the iron lock. A recent discussion (RCHS) has led to suggesting the location of the riser, or part of it, being placed at the site of the spill weir. Images of the spillway would be appreciated to test that theory.

As it happens, I came past earlier today. Spillway runs in a narrow purpose-built brick lined channel between the flattened part next to the iron lock and the gardens immediately behind it. If part of the footprint of the original lock(s) overlapped it, it's been extensively reworked since.

 

This photo (which I didn't take today!) shows the lie of the land pretty well without the trees and fences and moored inspection launch that take up some of the space today

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Heartland]

Thanks to enigmatic

The length of the brick lined channel is quite long, if I recall, and looking on google earth may be two boats length equivalent. The reconstruction of the locks acording to canal company records was discussed in 1824 and was clearly in progress by 1826, but that work involved the making of the channel 1 3/4 furlongs long 8ft 6in below the original level to the Stone Lock

There were considerable movement of spoil and changes to the landscape it would appear.

 

Part of the interpretation of how this work was done remains a matter of discussion, Bryants Map  (1831) shows

 

a clear channel to the north with the three sets of lock gates on a similar aligment to this slipway, but investigation at ground level indicates that Bates map might be wrong at to passing of the original line to the north of the Stone Lock and to width of land there suggests that the original line went south instead of the north.

 

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Heartland

[Tony1]

On 27/03/2022 at 21:00, MtB said:

 

The missing ladder only matters if you are single-handing I'd have thought, and the exact same problem persists if Mr Helpful happens not to be there, doesn't it?!

 

I am my very own Mr Helpful, in many cases. I need no external assistance to make a thorough mess of a lock. 

 

The first time I went through this one (singlehanded as usual), I didn't spot that there were no ladders until very late in the process.

So I cruised in, stepped off with the centre line, closed the gates behind me, and went ahead to let the water out. 

When the water was down and the bottom gates open, my attention turned to the matter of getting down back onto the boat- which was when I finally realised there was no ladder.

What new canal devilry was this? I wondered. How could there be no ladder? There was always a ladder. 

But there was no ladder.

 

Mohammed clearly could not go to the mountain on this occasion, so the mountain would have to be towed out, using a force that amounted to a depressingly small fraction of one horsepower. 

One snag was how to handle the rope around the footbridge that crosses the bottom gates, but by laying down I was able to pass the rope under the bridge with one hand and grab it with the other (I now have a much more elegant technique for doing this). 

 

On these occasions when singlehanding and you have to tow the boat out of a lock, I do worry what might happen if a strong bywash current started dragging the boat over towards the offside bank whilst you were still coming down the slope on the towpath side. 

I've tried hauling the boat in against a bywash a few times, and it can be almost impossible on your own. 

 

Wait for some helping hands is the answer I guess, but on this occasion it was well after 4pm on an early January afternoon and the light was starting to fade. 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Tony1

[Rob-M]

4 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

 

I am my very own Mr Helpful, in many cases. I need no external assistance to make a thorough mess of a lock. 

 

The first time I went through this one (singlehanded as usual), I didn't spot that there were no ladders until very late in the process.

So I cruised in, stepped off with the centre line, closed the gates behind me, and went ahead to let the water out. 

When the water was down and the bottom gates open, my attention turned to the matter of getting down back onto the boat- which was when I finally realised there was no ladder.

What new canal devilry was this? I wondered. How could there be no ladder? There was always a ladder. 

But there was no ladder.

 

Mohammed clearly could not go to the mountain on this occasion, so the mountain would have to be towed out, using a force that amounted to a depressingly small fraction of one horsepower. 

One snag was how to handle the rope around the footbridge that crosses the bottom gates, but by laying down I was able to pass the rope under the bridge with one hand and grab it with the other (I now have a much more elegant technique for doing this). 

 

On these occasions when singlehanding and you have to tow the boat out of a lock, I do worry what might happen if a strong bywash current started dragging the boat over towards the offside bank whilst you were still coming down the slope on the towpath side. 

I've tried hauling the boat in against a bywash a few times, and it can be almost impossible on your own. 

 

Wait for some helping hands is the answer I guess, but on this occasion it was well after 4pm on an early January afternoon and the light was starting to fade. 

 

 

If nobody is around then it is a perfect time to practice flicking the rope under the bridge.  Dangle the end below the bridge and get the rope swinging then with a perfect flick it swings under the bridge and up the other side, you then casually turn round and catch the end.  If there are people around you will miss the end, drop the rope and it all ends up in the cut.

[Tony1]

12 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

If nobody is around then it is a perfect time to practice flicking the rope under the bridge.  Dangle the end below the bridge and get the rope swinging then with a perfect flick it swings under the bridge and up the other side, you then casually turn round and catch the end.  If there are people around you will miss the end, drop the rope and it all ends up in the cut.

 

I did actually consider swinging the rope underneath the footbridge, but the scheme had a whiff of unfeasibility about it, so I went for the more certain technique of direct hand to hand contact.

 

More recently a chap showed me a much better way, which is to get the boat moving out of the lock, and then hold the end of the rope loosely against the 'back' side of the bridge, and as the boat passes underneath it draws the centre line with it. As long as you are holding the bitter end of the centre line up close to the bridge, the line itself will pass not far below the bridge, so that you can easily reach down on the 'forward' side of the bridge, and grab the line as the boat is pulling it underneath. 

Then you can let go of the bitter end and it will pass underneath the bridge.

The only slight concern I have with this is that the boat has to go well forwards of the bridge before the centre line raises up and gets within your reach, and if its windy or there is a strong bywash current, the boat could be carried to the other side of the canal by the time you've grabbed the line and start coming down the slope. 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Tony1

[BEngo]

The bywash can be used to advantage going downhill, if, as usual, it enters on the off side.  Open the towpath gate and use your normal technique to get the boat out.  If you are closing the gate, stop the boat opposite the bywash.  The flow will normally hold the boat to the bank, aided by your centre line. Go and shut the gate.  Drive off.

 

It can be worked with a towpath side bywash, but only if you can get on and off on the offside below the lock.

N

 

 

[Tony1]

15 minutes ago, BEngo said:

The bywash can be used to advantage going downhill, if, as usual, it enters on the off side.  Open the towpath gate and use your normal technique to get the boat out.  If you are closing the gate, stop the boat opposite the bywash.  The flow will normally hold the boat to the bank, aided by your centre line. Go and shut the gate.  Drive off.

 

It can be worked with a towpath side bywash, but only if you can get on and off on the offside below the lock.

N

 

 

 

 

Yes, I've noticed in most cases the bywash comes in from the far side. But there were a couple of locks I can remember where the bywash somehow came in from the towpath side, or for some other reason it seemed to push the boat out form the towpath- and its those I had in mind when I said that- its those you would need to look out for when towing the boat out by hand. 

 

 

[haggis]

When we went through that lock a few years ago I couldn't open the top paddle tow path side and Iain had to come to.my aid. There was a boat following us so being a kind soul I stayed behind to help. Blow me, the paddle rattled up no problem. It was fine when we went through last year too. Most odd.

 

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, Rob-M said:

If nobody is around then it is a perfect time to practice flicking the rope under the bridge.  Dangle the end below the bridge and get the rope swinging then with a perfect flick it swings under the bridge and up the other side, you then casually turn round and catch the end.  If there are people around you will miss the end, drop the rope and it all ends up in the cut.

A monkey's fist is handy if you are not that skilled at flicking ropes

[Tony1]

3 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

A monkey's fist is handy if you are not that skilled at flicking ropes

 

I'll certainly bear this info in mind, but I have seen a worrying decline in the number of monkeys around canal locks over the last few months.

I don't want to play down the challenge of persuading a monkey to form its hand into a fist (and by doing so, to help you through a lock), but the bigger challenge in my view is that of securing one's monkey in the first place.  

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

2 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

 

  but the bigger challenge in my view is that of securing one's monkey in the first place.  

 

 

A reef knot

[Tony1]

12 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

A reef knot

 

Heavens above, my dear fellow I must apologise.

How could I have thought you meant to somehow recruit an actual monkey? 

 

That said, I think we may have inadvertently stumbled upon a great idea. 

I can only hope CRT will give at least some consideration to supplementing their current crop of decidedly indifferent volunteers with some keen young monkeys. 

The banana budget will certainly have to increase, but just imagine the speed and dexterity of the new simian volunteers.

The wigan flight could be done in record time, and Heaven help any local chavs who try to give the crew a hard time. 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Tony1

[Ronaldo47]

[magpie patrick]

4 hours ago, Heartland said:

Thanks to enigmatic

The length of the brick lined channel is quite long, if I recall, and looking on google earth may be two boats length equivalent. The reconstruction of the locks acording to canal company records was discussed in 1824 and was clearly in progress by 1826, but that work involved the making of the channel 1 3/4 furlongs long 8ft 6in below the original level to the Stone Lock

There were considerable movement of spoil and changes to the landscape it would appear.

 

Part of the interpretation of how this work was done remains a matter of discussion, Bryants Map  (1831) shows

 

a clear channel to the north with the three sets of lock gates on a similar aligment to this slipway, but investigation at ground level indicates that Bates map might be wrong at to passing of the original line to the north of the Stone Lock and to width of land there suggests that the original line went south instead of the north.

 

 

 

That map represents a fair diagram of what I might have expected - a couple of points

 

The original line wasn't fettered by any previous arrangement so would have appeared natural - as in, unconstrained. Often alterations can be spotted by the trained eye because something jars, but the line today is very fluid including lining up well with the bridge below the lock (which presumably didn't move) - the original line would have been as fluid and natural.

 

Second - even in 1824 the ideal would have been to minimise any delay with the switchover - so lowering the canal between what is now the Stone and Iron locks would be a non-starter, it would take too long, by the same token it seems unlikely that the old route would have been crossed by the new one if that could have been avoided - it would have been quite an undertaking to build to either side of the old route, at a level nearly nine feet lower, and the canal would have been closed for a significant time to remove the crossover - with a parallel route it is possible to avoid closure altogether, and certainly easy to minimise it. This doesn't mean they didn't do this, just makes it less likely. 

I'm not sure anything will show to the naked eye on the ground now, (and looking at Google Earth nothing is apparent from the air either - may be different in a very dry summer) - I think you need an investigation looking for disturbed earth. 

[magpie patrick]

Jut to add - I've had a quick look on NLS maps not only here but at one or two other diversions, specifically for construction of the railway below Christleton Lock and on the T&M at Church Lawton and at Meaford- what's noteable is that the NLS maps are around about 1900 and yet in all these other places evidence of the old route (or at Christleton - the temporary route) is very obvious, but nothing at all shows at Beeston. The mystery deepens! 

[David Mack]

16 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

That map represents a fair diagram of what I might have expected - a couple of points

 

And another. That map appears to show the canal falling towards Chester through Bunbury and Tilstone, then rising through the Beeston locks!

A bit like my father's old OS 1" map of Birmingham which had either Spon Lane or Smethwick locks (can't now remember which) drawn the wrong way round, meaning that you could apparently go round a continuous ascent in Escher staircase style...

Edited March 29, 2022 by David Mack