Why are there no canals in the north east of england?

[brummie76]

Hi

 

This is my first post on this forum and i would like to know why there are no canals in the north east of england?? There was lots of coal etc to transport....plenty of rivers....wny no canals....everywhere else did?

[allybsc]

Hi

 

This is my first post on this forum and i would like to know why there are no canals in the north east of england?? There was lots of coal etc to transport....plenty of rivers....wny no canals....everywhere else did?

 

 

I think there were plans to canalise the Tyne...but then the railways popped up and that was the end of that. There was a canal in Carlisle that ran out to the Solway...I think????

[brummie76]

but surely canals were though of and invented well before steam engines and railways??

[the grinch]

canals tended to be built between major cities that were inland maybe the lack of them in the NW was part of the reason? most of the major places are on rivers to start with? so no need? just a thought!

[Guest]

Hi

 

This is my first post on this forum and i would like to know why there are no canals in the north east of england?? There was lots of coal etc to transport....plenty of rivers....wny no canals....everywhere else did?

 

Sticking my neck out here but -

 

I would say as the North East's industrial development (mainly founded in steel and chemical production in my area) followed very closely on from the development of railways there was no need to build canals as there was an arguably 'superior' transport structure already under development to get the ore to the furnaces and the raw materials to the big chemical complexes at ICI Wilton and Billingham.

 

Other areas industrial development are founded in production of materials that pre-date steel and therefore the advent of the railways.

 

but surely canals were though of and invented well before steam engines and railways??

 

Correct - but towns like my home town Middlesbrough were mere villages when other cities in the Midlands, North West and Midlands were rapidly developing. It is only when Iron Ore was discovered that things developed - by then the writing was possibly on the wall for canals as railways were developing.

 

See here for a brief History of my locale-

 

http://www.englandsnortheast.co.uk/Middlesbrough.html

 

The Rivers were of course used for transport too but they were never canalised in the same way as others like the Aire...

 

ed to add - there is an interesting reference to canals in the link I posted, something I wasn't aware of -

 

"The ports of the Tees and Whitby for example, lay outside the coalfield, but were able to benefit from the coal trade. Whitby was the home to much shipping and a certain James Cook (later Captain Cook) worked on Whitby colliers shipping coal from the Tyne and Wear to London in 1746.Stockton hipped coal from at least 1622 and by 1795 had easily eclipsed Hartlepool and Yarm as a port. The flat terrain of the Tees vale prompted suggestions that a 'coal canal' might benefit Stockton and Darlington's trade and canals were surveyed in 1767, 1796 to bring coal to the ports of the Tees.

Neither canal was built and by 1810 the idea of building a railway was suggested instead. It was this that led to the Stockton and Darlington Railway of 1825. One important aspect of the Stockton and Darlington Railway was that it resulted in the opening of Middlesbrough Dock on May 12 1842 specifically for the shipment of coal and had actually brought about the birth of the town of Middlesbrough in 1830. However, in the long term iron became the lifeblood of this particular town".

Edited May 14, 2012 by MJG

[Nine of Hearts]

I'd go with the proposition that canals were used to connect consumers of goods with producers, and shift finished product. Tyneside didn't need a canal, because it was already connected to a waterway. The North Sea. I'd imagine it was easier to shift a whole load of coal in coastal brigs, than lug it up hill and down dale in dinky little 70 footers.

[Pluto]

One of the main problems would have been water supply, with the hinterland to the coast often reaching over 700 feet. Also, the coal was being carried downhill, which made horse drawn tramways much easier to operate. The distances involved were comparatively short, and this would have created problems for canals by the number of locks needed in a short distance. There was no likelihood of long-distance transport as cheap coastal shipping was available to serve the major London market, and the limestone area towards Yorkshire was not best suited to canal construction.

[Thorfast]

The Newcastle to Carlisle railway line more or less follows a route that was first surveyed to create a canal.

[carlt]

They didn't want to encourage them to travel South.

 

Their only link to the South was the Great North Road which meant that they had to pass through Doncaster, an experience so depressing that they just turned back and went home.

[rgreg]

I've pondered over this one myself before and can only assume that as most of the major towns/cities were on navigable rivers close to the coast there was little requirement for canals.

[Guest]

They didn't want to encourage them to travel South.

 

Their only link to the South was the Great North Road which meant that they had to pass through Doncaster, an experience so depressing that they just turned back and went home.

 

I know you are from around them parts - but it's not THAT bad is it?? - looked alight to me as we boated up to it last month anyway,

 

 

try Middlesbrough from the Tees for a thoroughly depressing experience...

Edited May 14, 2012 by MJG

[carlt]

I know you are from around them parts - but it's not THAT bad is it?? - looked alight to me as we boated up to it last month anyway,

 

It has certainly become more picturesque, since the death of heavy industry.

[Guest]

It has certainly become more picturesque, since the death of heavy industry.

 

Ahh the trade off - we still have the smog but some jobs associated with it (all be it in much smaller numbers).

 

Funnily enough I was looking at the former ICI Wilton site the other day on Google Earth and it's just stark how many of the plants on there have been raised to the ground and now just show as 'footprints'...

[pete harrison]

Funnily enough I was looking at the former ICI Wilton site the other day on Google Earth and it's just stark how many of the plants on there have been raised to the ground and now just show as 'footprints'...

I.C.I. Billingham site (which you have also mentioned in this thread) is exactly the same, a shadow of what it once was. I should know as I currently work there

[Mac of Cygnet]

I don't know whether you've noticed, but England becomes narrower and hillier the further north you go, so really Ripon and Kendal are about the furthest north that the connected system would be necessary or economic. Only when it widens and flattens out again in Scotland do canals reappear (but unfortunately no connection )

[Matthew Dowson]

Coastal colliers all the way to London, I believe most of the NE's coal was burned in the capital of our fair land.

[NB Alnwick]

Hi

 

This is my first post on this forum and i would like to know why there are no canals in the north east of england?? There was lots of coal etc to transport....plenty of rivers....wny no canals....everywhere else did?

 

I researched this question as part of my studies into the development of railways. Some of the answers already posted in this topic are pretty close to the truth. The development of a transport system follows need and in the North East, the initial need was to move coal to the coast where it could be shipped to London, Edinburgh and other major coastal conurbations. The distances concerned, the gradients encountered and the nature of the geography in the area did not favour the development of a canal network. As a result, traditional waggonways gradually developed into stone tracks, then iron ways and eventually Britain's embryo railway network started to emerge.

[magpie patrick]

I researched this question as part of my studies into the development of railways. Some of the answers already posted in this topic are pretty close to the truth. The development of a transport system follows need and in the North East, the initial need was to move coal to the coast where it could be shipped to London, Edinburgh and other major coastal conurbations. The distances concerned, the gradients encountered and the nature of the geography in the area did not favour the development of a canal network. As a result, traditional waggonways gradually developed into stone tracks, then iron ways and eventually Britain's embryo railway network started to emerge.

 

That's about as good an answer as can be given in one paragraph. Neatly summarised Graham.

 

We've always had this thwacking great "inland waterway" called the coast, Other navigations were developed on a mix of need and opportunity. The Severn, The Trent and the Thames are all large naturally navigable rivers that penetrate inland. They also penetrate usefully where "inland" gets a long way from the coast, whereas Carlisle to Newcastle is, I think, only about 60 miles. On top of that, extending the three main rivers by canal was relatively easy (leaving the Huddersfield Canal out of it) whereas extending the Tyne, the Tees or the Wear was anything but easy.

 

Dare I suggest also the northerners, and especially Nor th Easteners, were more level headed. Down Yer int souwest some daft ideas made it off the drawing board. The Bude Canal wasn't the brightest of ideas, but at least it opened and carried trade. We live within walking distance of an aqueduct that probably never even saw water, never mind trade. Northerners knew when a canal wasn't the right answer, some southerners didn't.

 

But I digress

[carlt]

That's about as good an answer as can be given in one paragraph. Neatly summarised Graham.

I still prefer my "dismal Donny" theory.

[Pluto]

That's about as good an answer as can be given in one paragraph. Neatly summarised Graham.

 

We've always had this thwacking great "inland waterway" called the coast, Other navigations were developed on a mix of need and opportunity. The Severn, The Trent and the Thames are all large naturally navigable rivers that penetrate inland. They also penetrate usefully where "inland" gets a long way from the coast, whereas Carlisle to Newcastle is, I think, only about 60 miles. On top of that, extending the three main rivers by canal was relatively easy (leaving the Huddersfield Canal out of it) whereas extending the Tyne, the Tees or the Wear was anything but easy.

 

Dare I suggest also the northerners, and especially Nor th Easteners, were more level headed. Down Yer int souwest some daft ideas made it off the drawing board. The Bude Canal wasn't the brightest of ideas, but at least it opened and carried trade. We live within walking distance of an aqueduct that probably never even saw water, never mind trade. Northerners knew when a canal wasn't the right answer, some southerners didn't.

 

But I digress

Land ownership had its part to play, with many more small land owners in the north, and it was they who saw the economic benefits of canals in helping to develop their existing trades. However, they realised that transport does not add value, so it needs to be as cheap as possible and just serving local needs. No real thoughts of a national system, the canals serving Birmingham being as close to a national system as they could get, and they were not really thought of in national transport terms. It was the Canal Mania canals which were unsuccessful, often promoted by people who saw them as a way of making money, and more interested in financial matters than the practical ones of wealth creation. The London financial market was not particularly important in promoting the early successful canals, but they were with the later unsuccessful ones. Financial markets haven't changed much in 200 plus years, still greedy, with little in the way of understanding the realities of wealth creation rather than money laundering.

[davidc]

They didn't want to encourage them to travel South.

 

Their only link to the South was the Great North Road which meant that they had to pass through Doncaster, an experience so depressing that they just turned back and went home.

 

 

For Me I would turn back once over the Bridge and into Gateshead now thats depression (and of course I won't mention that place south east of Gateshead).

[allybsc]

For Me I would turn back once over the Bridge and into Gateshead now thats depression (and of course I won't mention that place south east of Gateshead).

What ever you do don't mention *THAT* place!

[Heartland]

As to Northern Waterways, the Carlisle Canal was completed in 1823 and linked Carlisle with Port Carlisle, a length of eleven an a quarter miles with 8 locks for barges. The canal was closed August 1st 1853 and work then went on to covert the route by the Port Carlisle Dock and Railway Company. There was also the mile and a half long Ulverston Canal opened in 1796 and abandoned in 1945, whilst the Lancaster Canal reached Kendal in 1819.

 

In the North East Navigations were mainly river, such as the Tyne navigable for some 19 miles inland and the Tees (24 miles inland). There were also tidal estuaries around the coast. There was a considerable trade along the East Coast taking coal in sailing vessels commonly known as Brigs and Barques. Perhaps the rarest example recorded by Hadfield is the short Whitby Canal that joined the Esk.

 

There were canal schemes proposed in land, but not built. It seems the waggonway and incline system proved the best method of brining that essential commodity coal to a riverside or estuary staithe.

 

Ray Shill