how wide is Shropshire union

[magpie patrick]

3 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

I would be surprised if anyone was monitoring use of the canal daily for the 9 months for wider boat use. Some converted life boats were quite wide beams, though not I dont think 14'.

 

 

I don't suppose it was monitored in the period in question (no-one knew the information would be needed) but BW would know what boats were based on the canal

[Stroudwater1]

I wonder how would they know that , with no registration system in place then? 

[Tracy D'arth]

I wish that they had built all the bridges to 7'

[magpie patrick]

10 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

I wonder how would they know that , with no registration system in place then? 

They had a registration system, just not registration numbers - they also had lengthsmen who would "know their patch"

[David Mack]

29 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

IIUC then BW could only demand bridges big enough for boats that had been in use on the canal prior to the 1968 transport act - the MoT wouldn't be obliged to build (or pay for) anything bigger. 

Not strictly so. BW was not legally obliged to provide for larger craft, but nothing in the 68 Act says they couldn't maintain the canal for larger craft than those that were using it. But at the time istr BW, came under the control of the Ministry of Transport, so would have been under pressure to minimise the cost imposed on another of the Ministry's activities. Prior to the Act, BW would have been obliged to maintain the as-built dimensions under the public right of navigation.

Edited May 26, 2022 by David Mack

[magpie patrick]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Not strictly so. BW was not legally obliged to provide for larger craft, but nothing in the 68 Act says they couldn't maintain the canal for larger craft than those that were using it. But at the time istr BW, came under the control of the Ministry of Transport, so would have been under pressure to minimise the cost imposed on another of the Ministry's activities. Prior to the Act, BW would have been obliged to maintain the as-built dimensions under the public right of navigation.

 

The bridge wasn't BW's doing - the MoT, if that's what it was then, would have built the motorway and because of the 1968 Act BW could demand it didn't obstruct the navigation - the debate then moves into what constitutes obstruction. BW would have been quite entitled to ask for a bigger bridge but the provisions of the 1968 Transport Act limited what the MoT were obliged to pay for. 

 

Given that ten years earlier the Forth and Clyde was legally abandoned to allow a bridge to be built I guess the MoT knew exactly where they stood - they seem to have known their rights.  

[David Mack]

38 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

I suspect that the narrowing was done without recourse to finer legislation and just on the assumption that canals are for 7' ish wide narrowboats  arent they? 

 

The motorway plans would have been published and available for public comment prior to being approved. So anyone could have objected and asked for the 14ft width to be maintained. I don't know whether anyone did, but if so the matter could have ended up at a public inquiry. At such an inquiry the objectors would have to show that the canal had been used by wider craft in the recent past, and also explain why, if no wider craft had used that section in the relevant 9 month period, public money should be spent on maintaining the canal to a greater width than BW were legally required to provide. Given that such an enquiry would have come close on the heels of Parliament passing the 68 Act it is not hard to see why an Inquiry Inspector would have ruled in favour of the narrower bridge.

 

It's worth remembering that a few years earlier, a proposal to infill the canal rather than provide a new bridge at Wilmcote on the Stratford Canal was only defeated when campaigners produced a toll ticket for a canoe, showing that the canal had actually been recently navigated.

Edited May 26, 2022 by David Mack

[Stroudwater1]

Just now, David Mack said:

The motorways plans would have been published and available for public comment prior to being aporoved. So anyone could have objected and asked for the 14ft width to be maintained. I don't know whether anyone did, but if so the matter could have ended up at a public inquiry. At such an inquiry the objectors would have to show that the canal had been used by wider craft in the recent past, and also explain why, if no wider craft had used that section in the relevant 9 month period, public money should be spent on maintaining the canal to a greater width than BW were legally required to provide. Given that such an enquiry would have come close on the heels of Parliament passing the 68 Act it is not hard to see why an Inquiry Inspector would have ruled in favour of the narrower bridge.

 

It's worth remembering that a decade earlier, a proposal to infill the canal rather than provide a new bridge at Wilmcote on the Stratford Canal was only defeated when campaigners produced a toll ticket for a canoe, showing that the canal had actually been recently navigated.

Indeed so and than goodness 😃 Weren't the IWA assiduous though with assessing impact and objecting to major works by the time that this happened, having recognised the dangers going on at the time to navigations? I seem to believe they were very much on the case with the BCN with the M5/M6 building works in the early 70s. I would be surprised that they couldn't have found some wider beamed lifeboat conversion at the very least? 

[David Mack]

9 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Indeed so and than goodness 😃 Weren't the IWA assiduous though with assessing impact and objecting to major works by the time that this happened, having recognised the dangers going on at the time to navigations? I seem to believe they were very much on the case with the BCN with the M5/M6 building works in the early 70s. I would be surprised that they couldn't have found some wider beamed lifeboat conversion at the very least? 

That was very dependent on how active the local IWA branch was. I think there was quite a lot of complacency after the 68 Act 'saved' the cruising waterways, which would have had no future if seen purely through a commercial carrying lens. 

Most of the BCN was remainder waterways, with no legal protection, and little remaining trade, so could easily have been lost. As it was the Old and New Main Lines were closed alternately for long periods for the construction work, justified on the basis that there was a nearby alternative route.

When I joined London IWA in 1980 one of the more campaigning members told me that they hadn't raised a murmer when the Port of London Authority closed the Grand Surrey Canal, just 6 years earlier.

Edited May 26, 2022 by David Mack

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

 

 

I don't know - I'm struggling to think of any other modern structures (say post 1945) that restrict historic gauge 

Droitwich

Just now, ditchcrawler said:

Droitwich

Birmingham Edgbaston 

[magpie patrick]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

Droitwich

Birmingham Edgbaston 

 

Both are true but differ somewhat from Ellesmere Port

 

Droitwich was done whilst the canal was derelict and we are lucky that a structure was put in at all - I doubt the canals would have been restored had the railway bridge been an embankment, it certainly would have cost a lot more. 

 

Edgbaston Tunnel is narrowed but it hasn't reduced the maximum size of vessel. 

 

At one point the A465 crossing of the Brecon and Abergavenny Canal, built in the early 60s, restricted boat length but that has since been rectified

[TheBiscuits]

5 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

I don't know - I'm struggling to think of any other modern structures (say post 1945) that restrict historic gauge 

 

Whatever that tower on the Rochdale is called.

[David Mack]

4 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Droitwich

The Droitwich Canal was legally abandoned when the railway bridge was replaced by the armco culvert, so the 68 Act didn't apply. The culvert is only there because the local authority had decided to support the canal restoration which was then more of a proposal, with little if any work having started. The timing of the bridge replacement was unfortunate because had it come a little later there might have been more understanding of what was needed. The current culvert is too high, too narrow and originally had the towpath on the wrong side (until DCT/WRG work parties moved it to the other side).

2 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Whatever that tower on the Rochdale is called.

I still think of it as Rodwell Tower, although it has not carried that name for years. In theory it does not reduce the maximum craft size, but it seems the columns aren't quite in the right place so there is a small restriction below 14ft. But since the Rochdale Canal was privately owned at the time the 68 Act requirements didn't apply.

Edited May 26, 2022 by David Mack

[jam]

On 26/05/2022 at 12:30, magpie patrick said:

I don't know - I'm struggling to think of any other modern structures (say post 1945) that restrict historic gauge 

Another example would be Croxton Aqueduct on the Trent & Mersey although narrowed prior to 1945, now makes Big Lock at Middlewich redundant as a wide lock.