Smethwick Locks

[Heartland]

The locks at Smethwick on the Old Birmingham Canal Main Line, today comprise a flight of three locks (completed 1790) at Smethwick and the adjacent (now filled in) flight at completed in 1769. At the opposite end of the summit are three more locks (Spon Lane) that carry the canal back down to the New Main Line, but originally served only the Wednesbury Branch Canal to wound through towards Hill Top.

 

When the canal opened in 1769 there were 12 locks and a short summit. Between 1787 and 1790 this summit was lowered with the removal of the top 6 locks (3 either side). According to Charles Hadfield (Canals of the West Midlands) this was done in two stages removing, at first the top two locks either side (8 & 7, 6 & 5) and replacing it with a (temporary?) waterway on the South side of the original line (1789). In this way 12ft was taken off the summit. A year later they took the canal down another 6ft removing two more locks (9 & 4) again south of the original, and presumably the temporary line. The work was done to the design or instruction of John Smeaton, although BCN staff, and other contractors, working under of the directions of James Bough engineer, actually did the work. Essentially the task was in house. The task purchasing additional land for the work was done in 1788 and with the imminent completion of the Fazeley route that had the potential to divert traffic into Birmingham by a new route, work started on the Summit reduction.

 

Dr Jim Andrews has argued that at the Smethwick side the route of the new line passed to the north of the original and that all traces of the original was removed with the making of the New Main Line, and as nobody has invented "fresh air archeology" there is little chance of any trace being found.

 

There was a survey done of the canal in or about 1777, which a copy exists in Birmingham Library Archives and a coloured original at Gloucester. This large scale plan is useful for researchers as it shows the BCN at at early date. It also records a few alterations and around Smethwick it shows, or appears to show, the 1788 land purchases. These are seen as a strip of land south of the original line leading up to Brasshouse Lane and beyond, but then the extra land changes side as the canal reached Roebuck Lane. Both Brasshouse Lane and Roebuck Lane had bridges over the canal then.

 

So did the work of cutting down the summit cross sides? Some 18ft had to be taken down in the end and this is most visible at the tall brick arch at Summit Bridge that has a 1790 date plate (in roman numerals) and was the canal cut here to the north of the original here.

 

Further west of lock 8 the canal could have been cut on either side as spare land was on either side, and it appears the new cut again could have passed to the south of the old waterway and this is consistent with the old lock channel becoming a wharf at Spon Lane from 1790.

 

The main question is this scenerio feasible and the land north of the canal near Brasshouse Lane part of the old canal. Certainly on the 1880's Ordnance survey, the old Brasshouse buildings are shown at a distance from the canal, whilst in 1777 they were beside it.

 

Ray Shill

[magpie patrick]

My understanding is that the summit was lowered within the limits of the powers of the original parliament act, which is why the summit is assumed to be directly below the original, and thus as you say, we will never find any trace of it.

 

However, I have seen a few quotes that claim the builders of the M5 found remains of the upper Spon Lane Locks, including a former colleague and friend who was the RE for the M6 and M5 when they were built, sadly he died in 2006, so I can't ask him.

[Heartland]

My understanding is that the summit was lowered within the limits of the powers of the original parliament act, which is why the summit is assumed to be directly below the original, and thus as you say, we will never find any trace of it.

 

However, I have seen a few quotes that claim the builders of the M5 found remains of the upper Spon Lane Locks, including a former colleague and friend who was the RE for the M6 and M5 when they were built, sadly he died in 2006, so I can't ask him.

 

 

Yes,

 

I had heard that the contractors for the M5 had encountered lock foundations, but have been trying to find some written evidence or some recorded personal recollection.

 

The fact that these foundations were discovered would assist with the location of locks 7 and 8. Lock 9 is known, and as this was to the north east side of Spon Lane Bridge, I suppose elements of this lock may still remain. The M5 passes over the canal around this point on an elevated section so the excavation for the piers would have discovered the lock foundations. As premises suchs a Kendricks came down to the canalside, the implication is that the excavations found the locks to the south of the present waterway and this fact would help to confirm the supposition that the deeper cut crossed sides to the north and at the summit was on the north of the previous waterway.

 

It has to be remembered that water supply was required to be made to the upper level locks 7, 8, 6 and 5 until July 1789 when it is recorded in Aris's Gazette that water was let out of this level. As water was pumped back by the Spon Lane Engine to top of lock 7 and the Smethwick Engine pumped back to to top of lock 6 and the Smethwick Reservoir also fed water into the Summit at the top of lock 6 some care to maintain this supply was needed. At lock 6 this could have been some form of temporary trunking, as the company intended to completely change the method of delivery to release water at the top of the third lock, creating the Engine Arm at the same time.

 

As Spon Lane Engine was to be dispensed with, was it decided to allow water supply to be concentrated here into the old Summit from the Spon Lane end, whilst the Smethwick End was altered and as this supply was required to be maintained as long as possible this fact determined the excavation to proceed close but to the north of the old line there.

 

Ray Shill

Edited April 1, 2012 by Heartland

[Laurence Hogg]

I have a disinct memory of the finding of these old locks being reported in the newspaper, either the Birmingham Post or the Evening Mail, there may be photogrphs there too.

[hughc]

We saw these remains when they were exposed. They were directly under the motorway and running at a slight angle to the OML. There was certainly more visible than just foundations and I seem to remember that a significant height of side wall was visible as well the lock tail brickwork. I can't recollect whether or not there was any visible sign of the second lock up from the existing level but the remains did not impact on the supports for the motorway so there is a fair chance that they were just covered over rather than being removed. The year escapes me but I'll check with the rest of the crew and see if they remember. Regards, HughC.

[magpie patrick]

The two possibilities are not totally exclusive. The paper I read (which I don't think I now have a copy of) suggested the summit was moved sideways and then moving it sideways again back onto the original line. This could have entailed replacement locks being built to avoid a prolonged stoppage as the final scheme in this case involved removing the original locks. There is no doubt the "one lock each end knocked off" scheme happened, and given the level of traffic, it is hardly surprising if the company attempted to keep traffic going.

 

But that is all conjecture, based on a paper I now can't lay my hands on...

[Heartland]

The comments are certainly of use, however moving the line sideways and then back would require the removal of much more spoil. Yet either that or digging deeper again further sideways may yet be an issue that can be resolved.

 

Ray Shill

[David Mack]

The two possibilities are not totally exclusive. The paper I read (which I don't think I now have a copy of) suggested the summit was moved sideways and then moving it sideways again back onto the original line. This could have entailed replacement locks being built to avoid a prolonged stoppage as the final scheme in this case involved removing the original locks. There is no doubt the "one lock each end knocked off" scheme happened, and given the level of traffic, it is hardly surprising if the company attempted to keep traffic going.

 

But that is all conjecture, based on a paper I now can't lay my hands on...

 

That sounds like an awful lot of work - and it would all have to be done by hand.

 

I have always assumed it was done something like this:

 

 

With this sequence the canal can be kept open throughout, except possibly for short closures to connect the intermediate level, and then the lower level in at each end, and for the final widening of the lower level to full width. No temporary locks are required. The narrow channel available at some points in the sequence might have necessitated one way working, but passing places could have been provided at intervals.

 

Incidentally, from Brasshouse Lane bridge you can (or at least could) see a definite ledge on the opposite side of the cutting, which at least one BCN guide book claims is the remnant of the original summit level.

 

David

Edited April 3, 2012 by David Mack

[magpie patrick]

That sounds like an awful lot of work - and it would all have to be done by hand.

 

I have always assumed it was done something like this:

 

 

With this sequence the canal can be kept open throughout, except possibly for short closures to connect the intermediate level, and then the lower level in at each end, and for the final widening of the lower level to full width. No temporary locks are required. The narrow channel available at some points in the sequence might have necessitated one way working, but passing places could have been provided at intervals.

 

Incidentally, from Brasshouse Lane bridge you can (or at least could) see a definite ledge on the opposite side of the cutting, which at least one BCN guide book claims is the remnant of the original summit level.

 

David

, although there are some times when there is only a narrow channel available, and one-way working may have been required.

 

I'm not in my usual argumentative mode here, but would that actually involve much less work than I suggested, except I did moot the idea that extra locks were built?

 

I wish I could find that blasted paper, I'm sure others managed to get their archive through four house moves intact...

[David Mack]

I'm not in my usual argumentative mode here, but would that actually involve much less work than I suggested, except I did moot the idea that extra locks were built?

 

I wish I could find that blasted paper, I'm sure others managed to get their archive through four house moves intact...

 

Its a concept I developed years ago, without knowing much more than that it was lowered first by 2 locks, and then by one more, and without any knowledge of land issues which would influence whether it was done on one side, or the other, or straight below.

 

But I assume that it would have been important to keep the canal operational throughout, with minimum periods of closure.

 

In my suggestion all of the digging is part of the permanent works, with no (or at least minimal)abortive work in excavating temporary channels or constructing temporary locks.

 

But its clearly not the only way of doing it, and I guess we will never know for sure.

 

David

[Heartland]

I'm not in my usual argumentative mode here, but would that actually involve much less work than I suggested, except I did moot the idea that extra locks were built?

 

I wish I could find that blasted paper, I'm sure others managed to get their archive through four house moves intact...

 

 

Looking at David Macks scheme of events, the concept has definite merit. I can only look at what has been written and what can be seen on old maps.

 

The large scale maps of the Ist Ordnance Survey (1880's) are drawn with such detail that many features are depicted. There appears to be a straight line cut in the grounds of Galton House, that would be consistent with the bed of the old canal, if the new deep cutting was made at this point to the north of it.

 

George Beswick had the contract to cut down the Summit working under the plan as proposed by the BCN engineers. He was cleraly at work on this rask by the summer of 1788. Both local press (Aris's) and proprietors minutes record the lowering 12ft and the opening of the temporary level. Proprietors minutes then mention the intention to cut down the addiitional 6ft. If the wording was taken literally. Beswick and his men, by July 1789 had cut down the level broad enough for a navigation, towpath and presumably spare land to begin the deepening further.

 

Looking through the cash books and company accounts, there were many mentions of Beswick being paid for his services, steerers being paid to move spoil, bricklayers paid for brickwork, and steerers for moving bricks to works and unloading same. Specific details of men cutting are not recorded, like they are in the Oxford Canal records, where it is possible to follow have that canal route was straightened 1829-1834. That is a pity as I was hoping to find a reference in the BCN records of how they crossed sides between north and south at the Smethwick end. I rather think this was done as wooden trough, like the one installed at Smethwick in 1934 when Telfords feeder aqueduct across Stony Lane was replaced by a siphon that passed under the road.

 

That the main cut crossed side with the bulk of the excavation taking place to the north of the canal, as previously suggested, has much to support this observation. Roebuck Lane had been shut off and contractors would have been able to conduct the bulk of the digging there and barrowing the spoil to the old canal for transport, or onto adjacent spoil heaps for subsequent transport, along the major part of the work without disrupting the navigation, so they could cut down the whole intended width there. The feeder from Titford Pools and the back pump at Spon Lane was also maintained in this view so that water supply remained available to the summit.

 

I was concerned to work out how as the cutting got deeper the spoil barrows were brought up to the canal. But BCN cash books have payment for feed for horses used at the summit and the use of gins. The gin was then common in the area and was particularly used in sinking shafts and bringing minerals out of mines. At Smethwick the view can be interpreted that the gins helped the contractors bring spoil out of the deeper cuttings to be loaded into boats.

 

Ray Shill

[Heartland]

Whilst continuing my investigation of this subject and looking through the canal co minutes, I cam across a mention that part of lock 8 Spon Lane remained after the summit reduction and I suppose it was these remains that were rediscovered when the M5 was built

 

Ray Shill

[hecla777]

Ray,

 

Not much in the papers in the British Newspaper Archive except this which was printed in a number newspapers:-

 

"Birmingham, June 22 1789 That stupendous work now- carrying on by the proprietors of our Navigation at the summit near Smethwick, is at this time so far advanced that we understand the water will be let into its new course within a very few days. So vast and seemingly impracticable an undertaking, has, we believe, never before been attempted in this kingdom, mountains have been raised and levelled, and canal of a well's depth, has been cut almost under canal ; in short, it is not easy to convey a just idea of what human art and labour, have in this particular instance accomplished. Three hundred labourers employed in the business, some in digging, some in filling, and the greater part in wheeling, in succession, up the declivity, for a mile in extent, their loaded barrows upon the stages erected for them, presents to the spectator a most pleasing, busy, and novel scene; and we sincerely hope, that the spirited body who could attempt, and that the engineers who have executed, so great and expensive an undertaking, will all derive their due advantage from its good success."

 

Not sure it helps explain how they did it though!

 

ATB

 

Martin O'Keeffe

[Heartland]

Martin

 

Newspaper Archive computer search does not always pick up on what is there. I went through Aris's Gazette Microfilms and there are more entries in that paper than what can be found on the computer search- which is something to think about when using the Archive Search.

 

Ray Shill

[hecla777]

Ray

 

 

In this case I think the problem is there are huge gaps in what has been scanned. Hopefully these may be scanned in the future. With the closure of Colindale newspaper library researchers will be pushed towards the online version no doubt. As you say it needs to be borne in mind when searching this, however there is much that can be found from the online archive.

 

ATB

 

Martin

[breesey]

When were the duplicate locks decommissioned? Lots of photos up to late 1940s

[Laurence Hogg]

When were the duplicate locks decommissioned? Lots of photos up to late 1940s

From memory about 1968, the gates were removed and a gate sporting carved letters Smethwick No1 appeared at Brades lower single lock in 1972. The flight was still in water however as late as 1972.

 

These two pictures were taken on my honeymoon in 1972!!