Jump to content

Where I am


Heartland

Featured Posts

12 hours ago, David Mack said:

And whilst people consider this question, here is another BCN question where a road crossed two lines of canal.

Tat Bank Road crosses the Titford flight and then the Rood End branch a few hundred yards apart. It's definitely neither of the current bridges though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parkhead Viaduct crosses the route of three different canals - the Pensnett Canal, Dudley Canal and Grazebrook Arm. But as you are not on the BCN, the Pensnett Canal beneath the viaduct is infilled, and the tracks on the viaduct were lifted in about 1995, its not there.

Are both of the canals you crossed currently navigable?

5 minutes ago, Francis Herne said:

Tat Bank Road crosses the Titford flight and then the Rood End branch a few hundred yards apart. It's definitely neither of the current bridges though.

Not me that posed that question!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting idea about Hayes. I travel on GWR or Elizabeth line / Crossrail regularly including today. It crosses the GU main line by Nestles at Hayes and Harlington then the Paddington Arm beside the moorings. It is quite a long distance but the crossrail trains are pretty long. 

35 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

A clue might be in order. I was on a GWR train. And as I mentioned above the two bridges concerned are 237 metres apart and separated by a river.

It does sound like you were between Hayes and Harlington and Southall and the river was the one which goes under the GU main line just past Tesco. 

(it isn't there because the distance between the bridges over the canals is about 0.5 miles) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Are both the canals navigable and in use? 

We’re not sure, he hasn’t yet answered that question, it was asked earlier. 
 

He said magpie patrick might know the answer, which makes me think the answer is in the south west ? 🤷‍♀️
I think he’s down there ain’t he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming back to my little question the bridge span is seen here so it a help. I also suppose there would have been transport of Calamine here.

 

The bridge plate should be a useful clue. And if its worked out where this is, the question is what is so important about the first picture.

 

 

 

623333.jpg

Edited by Heartland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your first image put me in mind of Smethwick, with stone in wire nets for retainer wall.   ?
Now this view is looking towards the pumphouse which is just hidden out of view.      ?
 

So we have the old line above the new. 
But am yet to find the the road that went over, or the calamine connection. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Your first image put me in mind of Smethwick, with stone in wire nets for retainer wall.   ?
Now this view is looking towards the pumphouse which is just hidden out of view.      ?
 

So we have the old line above the new. 
But am yet to find the the road that went over, or the calamine connection. 
 

Calamine (zinc ore) was used in brass production so may be linked to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

 

He might....

 

I reckon you were on a train going through Neath, where the railway crosses the Neath Canal, the River Neath and the Tennant Canal in very quick succession - technically all three are navigations, none are used now. 


Is the correct answer.

 

Edited by Captain Pegg
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the reason for posting was the latest U tube video, by Any Tidy, where it was stated that when the summit was reduced between 1788 and 1790 that the reduction was straight down. Jim Andrew also stated that the 18ft reduction of the summit was through regaining the original route. What the images above show that at The Brasshouse Lane Bridge that was not the case. In a previous canal forum discussion on this subject it was suggested to fit the Andrew model that the canal was dug down 12ft to the side and then dug another 6ft back on the original course. That method would have resulted in a steeper sided cutting.

 

At the time based on historical data and maps, I noted that the reduction continued the descent and that East of Roebuck Lane was dug to the south down 12ft to the 479ft level and went through the original Brasshouse Lane Bridge to Lock 4. When the level was reduced again to the south by a canal width to a parallel couese

 

What happened is there the canal was definitely moved to the south by a canal width and when the District Ironworks was pulled down the ledge of the 479ft level was exposed and still remains. That ledge is shown on a 1790 map that I once saw at Fazeley and is now at Ellesmere Port.

 

On the approach to Roebuck Lane, the road was closed to allow for the excavation of the deeper cutting, with the continuing descent model the original route crossed over, which would have needed a temporary bridge as trade was continued for most of the time. In fact the boatmen were paid to move earth from the cutting for depositing elsewhere on the canal. The large scale First Edition shows the site of the original Roebuck Lane Bridge and then the newer brick structure dated 1790 to the north of it.

 

Digging down the 12ft made lock 7 and 8 Redundant and the work with the continuous descent model went a canal width to the north. Once the 479ft level was open from Spon Lane Lock 9 to Lock the contractors working for George Beswick also used the site of the old Lock 5 & 6 to deposit spoil and also lock 7 and 8 to deposit spoil.

 

Lock 8 was re-discovered when the pillars to support the M5 motorway were made. The Express & Star did have a picture of that event, which I once saw in West Bromwich Library.

 

The final removal of the 479 feet to 473 saw the canal moved again to the south, leaving lock 9 lock chamber and the original bridge span and that lock chamber was adapted as a wharf. A new bridge was made to the south of it. Just as with Brasshouse Lane and if one looks very carefully at the brickwork on the north side of Brasshouse Lane Bridge (473ft Level) parts of the wall is infilled with stone at the place where the original bridge to the 479ft level would have been.

 

When the Jim Andrews model was published in an academic paper, many accepted his version, but on checking in 2012, I found much to discredit it using the same sources he used.

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I recall, various models were previously posted on the forum, but will dig out the model which describes this.

 

Whilst publicising these issues with the RCHS and BCN society in Boundary Post, I did think that the profile of Samuel Bull. James Bough (both engineers) and John Snape (surveyor) deserve more credit 

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.