Beeston Iron Lock

[Heartland]

Thanks Patrick

 

The problem was how did Telford do it ?

My thoughts were that the Stone Lock was made first to the north of the original line whilst the navigation was still in use. The technique was the same as applied with Planet Lock on the Caldon. At the same time the level of 1 3/4 furlongs had to be reduced to join up with the bottom chamber of the 2 riser. That could have been done again during the working waterway time and the new link made when a canal stoppage was arranged. Annual canal stoppages came into use about this time which lasted about a week

Making the iron lock required considerable investment in time, and finance and that may have been done to the south of the original without disruption. As soon as it was complete the canal was diverted and what remained of the original staircase was infilled to extent of forming a brick lined channel

 

Canal stoppage on successive years might have achieved this result with minimal disrupotion to traffic.

 

[Heartland]

And yes the appearance of ascending and descending locks does not help when considering accuracy when the locks in reality to Bunbury continued to rise, but it does seem that the 1831 map has tried to capture the before and after for Beeston Brook locks whereas a contemporary 1830 map does not-

 

[David Mack]

30 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

so lowering the canal between what is now the Stone and Iron locks would be a non-starter, it would take too long

Which raises the question as to what was done above the bottom lock on the Wolverhampton 21, when the bottom lock fall was halved and the new lock 20 inserted a little way above.

[David Mack]

23 minutes ago, David Mack said:

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...

 

Found it on the NLS website

[magpie patrick]

12 hours ago, David Mack said:

Which raises the question as to what was done above the bottom lock on the Wolverhampton 21, when the bottom lock fall was halved and the new lock 20 inserted a little way above.

 

Falls into the "not known" box! RCB ponders whether there was a diversion in "The Other Sixty Miles" - it is generally supposed that the canal were lowered in situ, on the basis of no evidence to the contrary. 

[magpie patrick]

12 hours ago, Heartland said:

The problem was how did Telford do it ?

 

 He was a magician! 

 

On a more serious note, I had forgotten the concept of an annual stoppage which would have allowed bigger works to be cleared, and as the most complex works were the locks themselves these would clearly be built "off line". I'm less sure on the idea of using the lower lock of the two rise as a single lock, there's quite a lot of work in cutting down the upper chamber and connecting the old lock to the new, lowered line, and this would imply the lock above was complete substantially earlier (a year earlier?) 

 

Many of the other diversions I have looked at are quite pronounced, whereas in this case it need have been little more than moving the canal it's own width sideways, which will leave less evidence 

[Chris Lowe]

Even the 1836 to 1851 Cheshire Tithe map doesn't help, and it's pre Shropshire Union still marked as the Ellesmere and Chester canal.

 

[enigmatic]

On 29/03/2022 at 16:48, 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.

 

Spillway is obviously longer than the lock itself but joins the canal at almost a right angle (much like other locks on this stretch). In theory the old postcard I posted suggests there could have been space for a parallel lock/channel joining at a more navigation-friendly angle via what is a grass slope on my old picture and is now gardens, outbuildings and permanent moorings. Not sure it ever did though

 

I can see a couple of other major problems with the configuration on Bryant's map. Firstly IIRC it's smooth hillside on the offside above the iron lock, not the remains of an embankment that could have supported a parallel channel a few feet higher. Secondly I checked the listing for the Stone Lock, which suggests it was built c. 1772 with the original canal, not c. 1827 with the iron lock. So unless that's wrong, the stone lock is the original course (it's also the shortest possible course). Perhaps Bryant's map is based on a proposed unbuilt alternative solution to the subsidence problems, with the iron lock being a simpler solution that was actually built?

 

 

22 hours ago, Tony1 said:

 

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.  

 

 

 

I can make enquiries at Chester Zoo?

 

 

In practice, the first time I did this lock (the second lock I ever did single handed!) I used a hybrid of the two techniques you described (passed from hand to hand under the footbridge, but the centre of the boat passing under the bridge and pulling the taut line towards the other side made it much easier to grab. This seemed less risky than swinging or hooking ropes  

 

Since then, I've discovered enlisting help is more efficent!

Edited March 30, 2022 by enigmatic

[Heartland]

No ! The stone lock was not 1772 in fact no lock east of Chester was made in 1772. I am afraid the listing is poor for Chester Canal and the Middlewich Branch.

 

But thanks for the comments

As to Patricks comments, the way the canal was reduced 8ft 6in needs discussion, but the reduction of the two lock riser to a temporary one lock is one of the possibilities

 

The main factor to be decided is how the work was done to move the spoil for supporting the new channel

Key to this discussion is that

(1) There are no plans in Chester Records Office to show an altered route

(2) The CRT archives at Ellesmere Port seemingly have no records, but their catalogue on line is not complete

(3) The work had to be done whilst the canal was in operation

(4) At present I have yet to find an advertisement for contractors and assume that work was done by canal company workmen

(5) The iron for the lock probably came from Telfords preferred sources such as Hazelidine

(6) Alteration to the route was kept to a minimum as parliamentary permission might have been needed for a more substantial work

(7) It is likely that there was an original canal lock house, for the riser, which was disposed of the 1840's tithe map reproduced above indicates private ownership

(8) When Stone Lock was made the new lock house was at right angles to the lock presumably to have a view of the iron lock

 

 

 

 

[Philip]

Another unusual aspect of Beeston Iron lock is that it is a rare example of a lock to have a top gate paddle fitted after the carrying era came to an end - and to have a paddle fitted to the gate some time after the gate was fitted. 

 

The Chester Canal locks weren't fitted with top gate paddles as standard, except Hoole Lane lock which for some reason only has one ground paddle. I have seen photos of Beeston Iron lock from the 50s when the older top wooden gates were still in place and without gate paddles, and also a photo from about 1964 by which time it had steel top gates but with no paddles fitted.

However, a photo from 1977 shows a paddle fitted to the towpath-side gate and this was still in place until the gates were replaced in 2013, albeit the rack had been disconnected from the paddle as long as I can remember going through (2001 onwards). The new wooden gates fitted in 2013 didn't have gate paddles fitted and this is still the case now.

 

Here's a photo, the baffle in place looks a bit oversized and restrictive to the flow of water entering the lock..

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Philip

[magpie patrick]

2 hours ago, Philip said:

Another unusual aspect of Beeston Iron lock is that it is a rare example of a lock to have a top gate paddle fitted after the carrying era came to an end - and to have a paddle fitted to the gate some time after the gate was fitted. 

 

The Chester Canal locks weren't fitted with top gate paddles as standard, except Hoole Lane lock which for some reason only has one ground paddle. I have seen photos of Beeston Iron lock from the 50s when the older top wooden gates were still in place and without gate paddles, and also a photo from about 1964 by which time it had steel top gates but with no paddles fitted.

However, a photo from 1977 shows a paddle fitted to the towpath-side gate and this was still in place until the gates were replaced in 2013, albeit the rack had been disconnected from the paddle as long as I can remember going through (2001 onwards). The new wooden gates fitted in 2013 didn't have gate paddles fitted and this is still the case now.

 

Here's a photo, the baffle in place looks a bit oversized and restrictive to the flow of water entering the lock..

 

 I remember using the gate paddle in the 80's - I think the ground paddle was out of action and presumably repair of the culvert was less than straightfoward. 

 

Marple lock 9 also had a retrofitted gate paddle at the top - it was the only lock restored without one and it proved very slow. 

 

Going back to the iron lock - how are the plates anchored? I know it has distorted to some extent but presumably the plates are anchored otherwise it would have distorted very quickly 

[Pluto]

This is the drawing in Telford's Atlas, which may have other details in a text description.

[enigmatic]

15 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

Going back to the iron lock - how are the plates anchored? I know it has distorted to some extent but presumably the plates are anchored otherwise it would have distorted very quickly 

 

Here's a photo from last time British Waterways did maintenance on the lock sides. This is supposed to be (part of) the original support structure pictured above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 6, 2022 by enigmatic

[David Mack]

On 06/04/2022 at 10:22, enigmatic said:

 

Here's a photo from last time British Waterways did maintenance on the lock sides. This is supposed to be (part of) the original support structure pictured above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting. I was wondering how well almost 200 year old thin tie bars would have lasted.

[ChasH]

Several of the tie bars were found to be broken on this stoppage occasion, when the lock wall suddenly moved by 6 inches overnight. The tie bars were all renewed to steel bars with bottle screws, so that they could be re-adjusted in future if nessecary. There are 2 sets of tie bars at different heights on each vertical beam, and they are anchored to massive baulks of timber running the full length of the lock.

The picture shows towpath side, but some years later a test dig was made on the offside wall, as this was leaning in somewhat. This revealed totally sound tie bars (non-adjustable) anchored to a railway line longitudal structure. As it was all sound, it was deemed best to leave well alone. Hence this wall is still leaning, due to the sand hill.

On 29/03/2022 at 21:40, Heartland said:

Thanks Patrick

 

The problem was how did Telford do it ?

My thoughts were that the Stone Lock was made first to the north of the original line whilst the navigation was still in use. The technique was the same as applied with Planet Lock on the Caldon. At the same time the level of 1 3/4 furlongs had to be reduced to join up with the bottom chamber of the 2 riser. That could have been done again during the working waterway time and the new link made when a canal stoppage was arranged. Annual canal stoppages came into use about this time which lasted about a week

Making the iron lock required considerable investment in time, and finance and that may have been done to the south of the original without disruption. As soon as it was complete the canal was diverted and what remained of the original staircase was infilled to extent of forming a brick lined channel

 

Canal stoppage on successive years might have achieved this result with minimal disrupotion to traffic.

 

 

On 05/04/2022 at 15:54, Philip said:

Another unusual aspect of Beeston Iron lock is that it is a rare example of a lock to have a top gate paddle fitted after the carrying era came to an end - and to have a paddle fitted to the gate some time after the gate was fitted. 

 

The Chester Canal locks weren't fitted with top gate paddles as standard, except Hoole Lane lock which for some reason only has one ground paddle. I have seen photos of Beeston Iron lock from the 50s when the older top wooden gates were still in place and without gate paddles, and also a photo from about 1964 by which time it had steel top gates but with no paddles fitted.

However, a photo from 1977 shows a paddle fitted to the towpath-side gate and this was still in place until the gates were replaced in 2013, albeit the rack had been disconnected from the paddle as long as I can remember going through (2001 onwards). The new wooden gates fitted in 2013 didn't have gate paddles fitted and this is still the case now.

 

Here's a photo, the baffle in place looks a bit oversized and restrictive to the flow of water entering the lock..

 

I can confirm that the gate paddle was fitted due to the slides on the ground paddle having corroded away, making it in-operable. This was sorted later when the new wooden gates were installed 2013.

Incidentally, the current overflow weir is not original but added later. The original was on the towpath side, where there are 3 slots in the iron wall in the headbay area, with an iron pipe emitting below the lower landing stage.

The staircase locks would have been further back, probably fairly close to the cottage. 

The driveway across the field to Stone Lock is along the original canal bed.

Before the "accessible" towpath ramp was built there was a distinct curve in the towpath hedge where the towpath swung round a fairly sharp curve after leaving the staircase locks to get under the (smaller in those days) bridge.

If anyone has any pictures of the old canal bridge here, from canal level, or of Beeston Wharf, I would be very interested to see them. There are several pictures from road level showing both old and 'new' bridges available.