Locks at THe Bratch - Staffs & Worcs

[alan_fincher]

Our long summer tour didn't quite take in The Bratch locks, although we did visit them when we went up to the Wolverley banter.

 

So far as I can recall, they are effectively 3 single locks, with an incredibly short pound of a few feet between the bottom gates of one lock and the top gates of the next. These "pounds" have a much increased volume of water being connected to large side ponds. (We saw a similar arrangement between two locks when we went through the Stourbridge locks).

 

We asked the Bratch lock keeper the reason why it was like this, rather than the arrangement at say Foxton, where the bottom of on lock, and the top of the next each have a paddle connected to a shared side pond, but where it is a true staircase, with only one set of gates between each chamber.

 

He told us that the Bratch had originally been built as a true staircase, with side-ponds, but had later been rebuilt the way it now is, to conserve water.

 

I bought that explanation at the time, but now I think about it, it seems wrong. I can see that the arrangements at The Bratch or at Foxton, can both save a lot of water versus a staircase that has no side ponds. In the latter case multiple lock-fulls of water can be lost as the direction of working gets reversed.

 

However I cannot see why the arrangements at the Bratch are any more efficient than those at Foxton, in any normal operating mode I can think of.

 

Have I failed to spot something ? If not, why on earth would you chose to have extra gates, like at The Bratch, rather than the simpler, easier arrangements at Foxton or Watford ?

 

Just curious, that's all!

 

Alan

[magpie patrick]

I think the answer is that they are quite a bit older than Foxton, and that they are a conversion of a staircase whereas Foxton were purpose built. The two designs come from opposite ends of the spectrum.

 

At Bratch, a three rise was found to use a lot of water, so it was converted: the canal was fairly new and the designer (we know not who he was) seperated the locks to get just enough room for a top gate, and then put a culvert to the side pond. Incidentally, there is no documentary evidence for htis, but a BW bloke told me that when they drain the flight the old bottom gate cills can still be seen. The top lock stayed where it was, and the second and third locks were moved downstream. The road across the tail has a deistinct kink in it and must have been realigned having originally gone across the tail of the three rise.

 

Similar changes were made at the double lock in the middle of the Stourbridge Canal and the old flight of locks at Delph. There is documentary evidence for this: Hadfield cites company minutes in hos "Canals of the West Midland"

 

Foxton came from the other end of the spectrum: they wanted an ordinary flight of locks but to save money they ran them as staircases, saving on wing walls and gates. This was about 20 years after Bratch was modified and the engineer may have known of Bratch and seen how to improve on the design and economise.

 

Fourteen Locks, on the Monmouthshire Canal near Newport has five pairs and a treble of "Bratch Style" locks that were purpose built in that formation: these predate Foxton by about fifteen years. The engineer probably knew of the Bratch but wasn't as bright as the guy who designed Foxton.

 

In short, Bratch came first and Foxton is a development of the design.

[RLWP]

The road across the tail has a deistinct kink in it and must have been realigned having originally gone across the tail of the three rise.

 

Google Maps image Here

Edited August 12, 2008 by RLWP

[Keeping Up]

And yet there is a true staircase only a few miles up the same canal from the Bratch, at Botterham, which must have been planned at about the same time

[magpie patrick]

And yet there is a true staircase only a few miles up the same canal from the Bratch, at Botterham, which must have been planned at about the same time

 

Yes, that puzzled me, although it is a two rise and downstream of Bratch. For some years I wouldn't accept that Bratch had been converted and felt it must have been built like that, until the BW guy told me about the cills still being there.

 

I guess for whatever reason they could cope with a two rise but not a three rise. As is often the way with these things, you have to accept that what is on the ground is there, and work out why. It isn't always logical. As we have no records for all we know the chief engineer had a similar plan for Botterham but the commitee decided they could only afford Bratch and would have to put up with the two rise.

[alan_fincher]

Patricks reply all sounds very reasonable.

 

However it was my understanding from the BW guy that we talked to that there had always been sideponds at the Bratch from the outset, (so like Foxton), and the conversion done was making a staircase into separate locks.

 

Even if the original design had no sideponds, (and I'm sure he said it did), then even if sideponds were added to an existing flight, it seems remarkable that they couldn't have worked out that there was no need to double up the intermediate gates, and hence have to relocate two of the locks.

[magpie patrick]

Trouble is the changes at Bratch have not been documented: there is no surviving record of when they occured or why although it is thought to be very early in the canal's history.

 

I'd agree that changing from a "Foxton" to a "Bratch" would be illogical and for this reason I don't think that happened. While the lock keeper believes the sideponds were always there hay is probably wrong. It might seem daft with us to come up with a "bratch" arrangement but we have 230 years of canal engineering hindsight, the locks as originally built would have been a very early staircase (Old Double on the St Helens is thought to have been the first staircase on a British Canal, and that was only built about 5 years before the S&W. A company engineer, trying to work out how to fit a conventional flight of locks in a restriced space came up with Bratch as we know it today, and several other flights were subsequently modified (Stourbridge, the middle seven at Delph) or built ala Bratch (Fourteen Locks), all before 1800. Then in the years 1810-1814 the engineer responsible for Foxton had the brainwave of doing away with the gate and having ground paddles direct to and from the sideponds.

[classicstove]

In working days, water was at a premium so the use of, in effect, three single locks instead of a staircase will save water

 

Staircase locks always pass more a lockful of water (if the flight is full) to waste down the canal. So we have to remember that the principle of a canal was to use one lockful of water when going downhill using the emptying lock water to fill the next one going downhill where possible

 

The arrangement at The Bratch helps to save the water

 

The feed for the Bratch in the past was from a resevoir where now it depends how many people pull the chain in Wolverhampton via the sewerage works at Cut End (Shropshire Union Canal)

[alan_fincher]

Yes, but read the whole thread....

 

I quite understand that the "near staircase" at The Bratch with side ponds acting as pounds will save water versus a conventional 3 lock staircase with no side ponds.

 

What I'm asking is how it can save any more water than the true staircase arrangements at Foxton or Watford, which again have side ponds.

 

I don't believe it does.

 

It seems strange that The Bratch was converted from a true staircase to what we now have. They could instead have left the gates as they were, and introduced Foxton style sideponds, (if, as people seem to think, it wasn't built with side-ponds).

 

The only argument that convinces me about why they are separate locks without shared gates, is that it wasn't realised that the same water savings could be achieved by doing it Foxton style.

 

I'm still willing to be persuaded this is wrong, though!.

 

Alan

[Derek R.]

(snip)

The only argument that convinces me about why they are separate locks without shared gates, is that it wasn't realised that the same water savings could be achieved by doing it Foxton style.

Alan

 

I think that's correct, it may simply be that the engineers had not thought of a better way, and installed a comparatively more complicated solution to water economy than that later developed at Foxton.

 

A solution made in haste perhaps, and now a long time curio.

[Neil@CanalVoyagers]

This might confuse matters further, but I was told that at one point The Bratch was only two locks and was later converted to three - hence the reason why the bottom lock is much deeper than the first two.

[alan_fincher]

This might confuse matters further, but I was told that at one point The Bratch was only two locks and was later converted to three - hence the reason why the bottom lock is much deeper than the first two.

Well that's yet another slant I've not heard before.

 

I've never worked though them, only visited on foot, and didn't notice huge differences in depth of each.

 

The lock-keeper we spoke to reckoned they had been converted from a 3 lock staircase (4 gates) to the current 3 lock "near staircase" (6 gates).

 

He also reckoned some of the old cills are still visible in the "new" locks.

 

But he also told us that it had always had side ponds. All this doesn't stack up. If it was built as a true staircase, but with Foxton style side ponds, I can't see any water savings by changing to current arrangements.

 

It seems far more likely, (as others have said) that it was originally a true staircase but with no side-ponds.

 

I believe they could have converted it to "Foxton style" simply by adding the side-ponds, and relevant paddles, without needing to rebuild the locks, but that the opportunity was missed.

 

But if there was once only two locks ???........

[Neil@CanalVoyagers]

From Staffs & Worcs Canal Society Website:

 

Bratch Locks

Widely considered as Brindley’s masterpiece, Bratch Locks are unique and are well

known to students of canal architecture. They were originally conceived as a staircase

flight of three chambers but water wastage and long delays necessitated them being

rebuilt as three singles. At first they appear curiously illogical with the lock gates so

close together that it is impossible for boats to negotiate them. The secret is in the side

ponds which act as intermediate pounds and boaters should treat each as a separate

lock like any other. However it is especially important when locking through that the

gates and paddles of each lock are closed before the next ones are operated. There is

usually a lock keeper in attendance, especially in summer when the locks can become

busy both with traffic and spectators.

[Derek R.]

That seems the most logical way of using the locks, using the 'gap' that leads to a side pond as if it were a pound - no different from 'normal' lock working. No side paddles to operate as per S. GU. (do any still work?). Last time I was able to use Maffers was in the early eighties.

[alan_fincher]

No side paddles to operate as per S. GU. (do any still work?). Last time I was able to use Maffers was in the early eighties.

I'm not aware of any side ponds on the southern GU that can still be operated.

 

Most are de-watered, but not all.

 

Maffers uses them now as part of a "by-wash" system that allows the whole flight to be kept topped up, just by water run down from the top.

 

All still worked in the 1970s, so far as I can recall. We used them regularly, much to the confusion of most who did not understand them.

 

The twinned locks on the Regents (of which I think only one survives) had interconnecting paddles that allowed one to be used as the side pond for the other.

 

"Mangles" to achieve the same thing still exist at the twinned Hillmorton locks on the Northern Oxford, but I assume they are now disconnected or locked ?

 

Alan

[Hairy-Neil]

There's one that still works at Hanwell flight, or at least did last time I was through there, c.2000 as the lengthsman used it whilst I was there. He dropped a short pound, saving some in the side pond first, before going in wearing chest waders to remove a car tyre from Nuneaton's prop.

 

As you say, some at Maffers were definitely still working in the early 1980s, with signage explaining their use. Last time I was there, c.2000 the one at the top lock (Leg of Mutton Lock) appeared to be operational. Certainly all the paddle gear was still extant.

Edited August 30, 2008 by Hairy-Neil