Jump to content

The Buildings at the Staffordshire & Worcester Canal Junction Aldersley


Heartland

Featured Posts

If the Bushbury Tithe Map is consulted much of the land around the junction with the BCN was owned by Alexander Hordern,. The BCN had the House and Garden by lock 21 and the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal had four houses and Garden Ground north of the junction.

 

But a recent post in General Boating has raised a question as to whether the original lock 20 was north of the present junction, or even possibly south of it. The Post that shows Hancox Map of 1773 indicates that lock 20 was north of a warehouse. If that warehouse structure became the boatmens lodgings and stables of later time, then the junction would have been to the north of the later junction for lock 21

 

As seen in this Waterways Archive image from 1955 the clear towpath to the lodgings and stables existed to a certain point which could have been the early junction.

 

 

aldesrley 1955 -2.jpg

 

It is possible that the original turnover bridge and the present might have been the same after alteration. The present junction is seen beyond the bridge.

 

Edited by Heartland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

F7C33AF4-6B5A-4CD7-BE9B-1D673DA0CD44.jpeg.8a627925909beaebabcff32ec67746dd.jpeg
 

Why wouldn’t these buildings be the buildings originally marked on the map of 1773?

And the other buildings back the other side of the bridge, including what looks like a toll house here, built later?

 

 

To add; From the little I have read I understand there was a plan to divert the flight so that it crossed the S&W and met the Shroppie to avoid high Toll charges. 
 

 

Edited by Goliath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The buildings on the far side comprised the BCN Toll Cottage and other associated buildings according to the Bushbury Tithe. The issue is when the lock was rebuilt as two separate that would have needed a lengthy stoppage, if the 10ft lock was replaced in that location. There was said to be a "waggon road! put in 1784 but whether that was to take traffic whilst the new locks were made or construction materials is a matter for investigation. The problem is the lack of records for resolution.

 

The warehouse seems to be beside the canal side of the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal. In the view of the BCN buildings all structures then were above the S & W Canal and would have had little use as a canal warehouse for the lower canal

 

 

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have yet to find evidence of previous channels, but the Bushbury Tithe indicates the towpath past the S & W buildings turned inland and them stopped and that point might mark the position of a lock. Yet in looking to this issue a few years ago the stoppage from late August to mid September 1784 would appear insufficient time to complete the new arrangement, so the thought came then that the two locks were on a diverted course were constructed over time and completed during the stoppage period. Requests to change the original arrangement had been raised over time and it was also a point of issue in John Smeatons report to the BCN regarding water supply 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rob-M said:

Having locks 20 and 21 built on a new line could explain why there is the bend in the canal between 19 and 20 rather than continuing straight down. The rest of the flight runs on a fairly straight line.

supporting the idea that the junction was originally south of where it is today.


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20E48035-FCBB-44BB-BAB5-E812DF868CA3.jpeg.9146bfdf4a58f526205858f149b63774.jpegHow about the junction and bottom lock are in the original place.

And perhaps the fact that the additional new lock (now no20) is on a bend would be evidence of rerouting the channel to accommodate a new lock.

Keeping the old channel working while they build the new lock along side and diverting the water when ready?

Edited by Goliath
To add image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could build the new lock 20 alongside the old channel, but if the pound 20-21 is on the original line you would still need an extended stoppage to dig that down (and to reduce the height of the bottom lock), which wouldn't be needed if the whole section from above the new lock 20 to the S&W was on a new line.

Which then begs the question why, if both of the present locks 20 and 21 were built later, why does one have a single bottom gate and the other a pair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, David Mack said:

You could build the new lock 20 alongside the old channel, but if the pound 20-21 is on the original line you would still need an extended stoppage to dig that down (and to reduce the height of the bottom lock), which wouldn't be needed if the whole section from above the new lock 20 to the S&W was on a new line.

Which then begs the question why, if both of the present locks 20 and 21 were built later, why does one have a single bottom gate and the other a pair?

Why would you need an extended stoppage? The Rochdale completely rebuilt a one of their locks in a couple of days on at least two occasions. Most canals 'closed' for maintenance over a week every year, usually in May, and any competent engineer of the time would have been able to build a new lock in a week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it seems that Samuel Bull was definitly an accomplished engineer,

What brought about this query was the map of 1773 by Hancox where the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal warehouse was south (immediately) of the junction. I have now had time to look through my notes on  Snapes map of the BCN which is generally accepted to be 1777.

 

This map shows the S & W Warehouse as NORTH of the Junction and a Lock House where Hancox called the building a warehouse.

 

 

Snape Autherley.jpg

 

 

Compare this map with the 25 in 1901 ordnance survey, but could the new lock 20 have been made adjacent to the route may be through stanking off a section at the new site, earlier, or was all the work done at the same time?

 

 

aldersley.png

Edited by Heartland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overlaying an extract of  the Hancox 1773 map on a Google Earth aerial view, gives a very good fit with the canal line over the whole of the flight from the top to Lock 19. But from there, Hancox shows a more or less straight route, which meets the Staffs and Worcs north of the existing junction, whereas the current route from Locks 19 to Lock 21 is S-shaped. Does that indicate that the original canal was straight here (which is inconsistent with Snapes map of 1777), or that Hancox's survey which is pretty good elsewhere falls down just here?

300629619_WGEoverlay.PNG.8a039b80f57a1f052bb2f3adb03870f0.PNG

Edited by David Mack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can the Hancox map of 1773 be relied on for detail? It looks too simplistic a map.

 

The Snape map of ‘77, also predating the alterations, seems a more trustworthy/reliable/accurate record. 
I would assume a first hand record/ survey? So maybe there’s always been a bend in the canal at that point?

 

 

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interesting point to note about the Hancox map is the scale. The Snape map is much larger with many sheets. It has a later amendment for one part at Wednesbury. This copy is with the CRT now but Birmingham Library has a microfilm of the map when it was a Gloucester, The original was coloured.

 

With Hancox it seems to show the original Coneygree Newcomen Engine location

 

 

 

 

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.