Mystery location of ca 1900s canal photograph

[GUMPY]

 

It must be a point of record somewhere when the gauging locks got altered from having standard gates and paddles, though, I would have thought.

I think in one of my books it gives the date that the single lock was washed away/replaced , will look at the weekend if no one else has come up with a date.

[Laurence Hogg]

On page 31 of Autumn 2011 Narrowboat mag is a picture of "Tay" its shows floral decoration either side of the name and a sturdy extra guard. In the OP picture the extra guard is visible. This boat is unusual in NOT having "Bedworth" on the cabin side.

Below is a seriously enhanced image of the name panel, its been filtered and what enrgy level is there has been made to show up. It is a three letter name which tallys with the mag picture layout and the first letter all here who have seen it and studied agree is a T. (picture is in negative btw)

 

Edited December 18, 2012 by Laurence Hogg

[alan_fincher]

So are you disputing the 1906 build date of Tay, or the (claimed) June 1903 picture that shows the "standard" style lock gates already replaced by those very distinctive ones with no balance beams?

 

If it is Tay, something else is clearly recorded wrongly, isn't it?

[ChimneyChain]

Can I have a pair of x ray specs please

 

Darren

[Derek R.]

When was this TAY built Laurence?

 

- and how does it fit with the pre-1903 lock gates?

 

Either whatever information is available on TAY is incorrect, or we have a precursor to the USS Eldridge phenomena.

 

Honestly, blown up to those proportions you could suppose a number of characters to be available from that bunch of pixels. It is unreadable.

[Laurence Hogg]

When was this TAY built Laurence?

 

- and how does it fit with the pre-1903 lock gates?

 

Either whatever information is available on TAY is incorrect, or we have a precursor to the USS Eldridge phenomena.

 

Honestly, blown up to those proportions you could suppose a number of characters to be available from that bunch of pixels. It is unreadable.

 

If you were looking over my shoulder you would retract your statement, remember image processing is part of my everyday work, in some cases I often wonder if this place is the forensic lab for CRT's archive!

The process used produces dozens of images from different colours and levels, on some parts are more visible than others, its a standard way of assessing this type of problem and has been sucessfull in most cases, without doubt there are just three letters from what can be seen. You have one image here which best illustrates the "T".

To me the odd thing is the missing "Bedworth" which is on every other picture I have or can find, this cabin may be a part repaint job. Griffiths also duplicated names, ie there are I think three "Rival" named craft.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Laurence Hogg

[alan_fincher]

To me the odd thing is the missing "Bedworth" which is on every other picture I have or can find, this cabin may be a part repaint job. Griffiths also duplicated names, ie there are I think three "Rival" named craft.

You are avoiding the question Laurence.

 

Fleet lists for Griffiths from 1885 list only one Tay, and they say, and Peter has corroborated, it was built in 1906.

 

So unless the 1903 picture carries a wrong date, however much enhancing of images you do, it can't be Tay, can it?

[Laurence Hogg]

You are avoiding the question Laurence.

 

Fleet lists for Griffiths from 1885 list only one Tay, and they say, and Peter has corroborated, it was built in 1906.

 

So unless the 1903 picture carries a wrong date, however much enhancing of images you do, it can't be Tay, can it?

Alan,

I am not avoiding the question I am telling you what I have found, the result is determined by what is there peraphs initially invisible in the photograph. Today we can enhance things looking for tiny amounts of energy that can be detected or filtered and made to show up, WYSIWYG. If it conflicts with other "set in stone (or is it?)" information then it conflicts. I have presently sent the image to a colleauge who uses different software to mine to see what he can find.

Just because something is written on a old gauging sheet doesnt always mean its correct as we have found out before. "Narrowboat" isnt the bible, its information collected elsewhere by other people, photographs are one of the most solid evidence sources you can find and that lantern slide has not been retouched or fiddled with.

[Derek R.]

What You See Is What You Get - well, we see a query over a boat claimed to be one which at the time of the photograph had allegedly not been built. That is according to a fleet listing. Why should people not question a claim when there is doubt - isn't that how a truth is uncovered? We see a picture taken before 1903. We see no clear name or anything like it. Your enhancement is questionable - it's so unclear as to mean nothing. Quite often paint had been worn away to illegible and until there is clear photographic proof that existing documentation is incorrect, it points to that boat not being TAY. Might those small amounts of energy you detect be little more than reflected light or dirty marks? Could there possibly be other boats belonging to Griffiths without Bedworth on.

 

Not such a mountain from a molehill, more like a molehill being called a mountain when for all the world it looks like a molehill!

 

It will be interesting to see what any other software may discover. Perhaps then some questions might be answered. Or perhaps they won't.

[Laurence Hogg]

Derek, I dont thank you for your comments, theres been quite a lot of time spent on this and you obviously do not understand what is being done. I cannot show you all the results as this website cannot display the images at the resolution. "Your enhancement is questionable" - why? Do you understand the process even? Attitudes like yours make me feel "why bother", I can spend my time doing more profitable things.

 

That aside the new image that has come from more powerful software has shown us more detail, even at the res available here it is definate that the first letter is a "T". There scond letter is probably a "R" or a "H". This would point ot Trent or Thames,both are shown as 1899 registered boats and Thames is ex Joseph Phipkin which might explain the odd "canal Carrier" (partial repaint?).

 

Anyhow judge for yourselves, here is the image:

 

[alan_fincher]

Derek, I dont thank you for your comments, theres been quite a lot of time spent on this and you obviously do not understand what is being done. I cannot show you all the results as this website cannot display the images at the resolution. "Your enhancement is questionable" - why? Do you understand the process even? Attitudes like yours make me feel "why bother", I can spend my time doing more profitable things.

 

That aside the new image that has come from more powerful software has shown us more detail, even at the res available here it is definate that the first letter is a "T". There scond letter is probably a "R" or a "H". This would point ot Trent or Thames,both are shown as 1899 registered boats and Thames is ex Joseph Phipkin which might explain the odd "canal Carrier" (partial repaint?).

 

Possibly you are being a bit harsh on Derek?

 

At post #8 you identified the boat as being the "Tay" - not "possibly the Tay" - you said......

 

he location is just above Brentford gauging lock, the boat is the "Tay" run by John Griffiths, the date I would stab at is 1910 as the livery matches other photos from that period in the same location.

 

You then held your ground on that point, despite it not appearing to fit the facts we have.

 

Now you appear to be conceding it is not the "Tay".

 

Derek only said "Your enhancement is questionable", which as you are now saying what was previously identified as an "A" is probably an "R" or an "H", doesn't sound to me to be that unreasonable a comment for him to have made.

Edited December 18, 2012 by alan_fincher

[RLWP]

Laurence, I can't see anything but noise and pixellation in that image

 

I think you are in danger of seeing what you want to see

 

Richard

[Laurence Hogg]

Laurence, I can't see anything but noise and pixellation in that image

 

I think you are in danger of seeing what you want to see

 

Richard

 

Richard, as I have stated earlier the website CANNOT display the image in full res (2400 dpi) so at 300 its not so good. It shows a "T" followed closely by another letter, reflection or sunlight then removes the rest. Using fleet lists it gives only two possible names.

This is part of my job and interpretation usually isnt on images this bad, the first enhancement gave some info but the latter is much better.

 

Quite frankly I wish I hadnt bothered even making the first comment, it seems people on here would rather be in a court room picking over evidence and statements. I work with what I find, then go looking for better, it seems that doesnt matter in this case as words and statements are more important.

 

To you lot this is a hobby, a pastime, a game? To me its part of how I make my living and doing research for this forum is unpaid work, something I think I may avoid in the future.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Laurence Hogg

[RLWP]

the website CANNOT display the image in full res (2400 dpi) so at 300 its not so good.

 

Ahh, that makes sense

 

Richard

[AMModels]

On page 31 of Autumn 2011 Narrowboat mag is a picture of "Tay" its shows floral decoration either side of the name and a sturdy extra guard. In the OP picture the extra guard is visible. This boat is unusual in NOT having "Bedworth" on the cabin side.

Below is a seriously enhanced image of the name panel, its been filtered and what enrgy level is there has been made to show up. It is a three letter name which tallys with the mag picture layout and the first letter all here who have seen it and studied agree is a T. (picture is in negative btw)

 

 

Not sure why everyone is arguing the name is quite clear, in red and using a nice computer font. Irrefutable.

[luctor et emergo]

It's my ball, and if you don't like my rules, I'll go home...

 

First it was Tay, definately.

We should have all hailed, droPped to our knees, and it would still be Tay.

 

But wait, now it's not Tay afterall...

 

(And before you have a go, I'm used to 'arguing' about the shade of colour of WWII Armoured vehicles from B&W photo's. Never mind identifying units from bearly there markings)

 

Join the debate, and enjoy.

[Chris Pink]

Richard, as I have stated earlier the website CANNOT display the image in full res (2400 dpi) so at 300 its not so good.

 

To you lot this is a hobby, a pastime, a game? To me its part of how I make my living and doing research for this forum is unpaid work, something I think I may avoid in the future.

 

Well actually Laurence pixels are my trade and you are talking nonsense. The website cannot display 2400dpi or even 300 dpi because that's not what websites do, it's what monitors do. But if you want to show us that section you can, easily, show a small part of the image at the same resolution you have. If, as you say, you have a 2400dpi image then display the 1/2 " of the original where the name is.

 

Nobody expects you, on a forum that is just your pastime, to be rigorous in your terminology but if you are going to try and use that to criticise other's opinions you should make an effort to be so.

[photosofthepast]

Well, I know this debate has become a little contentious but I'd just like to thank everyone for chipping in and sharing their opinion. Just go easy folks - we all say things using language that we may later retract, but I can't see that anyone here has at any point tried to deliberately mislead, nor be so narrow minded as to not consider other opinions.

 

Sorry, just felt that needed to be said!

 

Anyway, I tried to call into the lock office at Brentford today only to be told by a passer by that it closed down a week or so ago. Can anyone confirm that? Are there any other offices or staff based in or near Brentford? I'm thinking we might at least get to the bottom of the date question, specifically when those gates were changed.

 

Give me a minute and I'll post modern views that I tried to take of both this and the other Brentford image mentioned previously. [Edit: give me until tomorrow - on looking at my pictures I didn't quite get the angle correct so I'll re-shoot tomorrow as I'll be passing through Brentford again]

Edited December 18, 2012 by photosofthepast

[John Holden]

Photosofthepast, whatever else you've done, you've raised an interesting debate.

I doubt if I'm alone in looking forward to another similar.

[photosofthepast]

Photosofthepast, whatever else you've done, you've raised an interesting debate.

I doubt if I'm alone in looking forward to another similar.

 

Well you could also try this one, at least to confirm if you think it's a canal or not? The height of the bridge makes me think it is navigable but I'm not going to fall into the trap of making any claims

 

See original at

[carlt]

I have used my image enhancing tools to have a closer look at this sign...

 

 

and can confirm that it says, quite clearly, "Welcome to Braunston, Please Drive Slowly".

[antarmike]

Well obviously there is no tow-path under the bridge, The gate presents an obstacle for a horse towing any craft, there is no obvious line of a fence or a hedge to segregate the horse using a tow-path from Beasties that may be in the field. There is actually no evidence of a tow-path as such. It doesn't look like a canal to me. The width of the waterway seems too wide for the maximum width of craft that could pass the bridge. If it is a man made waterway it is a lot of hand digging for a little used commercial venture. (and the Water is a long way down from the top of the bank so again I can't see it being a man dug canal, just too much digging) It may be a navigable river that might explain its width compared to the bridge opening. The stump (if that is what it is) in the opposite field looks like the remains of at least a 200 year old tree. It is unlikely in my eyes to find such an old tree so close to a relatively new waterway. It looks more like an ancient tree growing on an ancient river bank.

 

I am sure some one will come along and tell up this is taken just above Bow Locks, but personally I have read enough Bow Locks for tonight so goodnight.

Edited December 19, 2012 by antarmike

[luctor et emergo]

The bridge looks like it is build to allow navigation. It could be an abandoned canal/canalised river?

[Derek R.]

Couldn't say where that was taken, but the feeling is of a meandering river in Cambridgeshire, or even some backwater of the Thames. The bridge does raise the thought of it being deliberately built to allow traffic.

 

Haven't a clue, but a lovely picture. That sign would reveal much, but Carl has done that.

[antarmike]

Couldn't say where that was taken, but the feeling is of a meandering river in Cambridgeshire, or even some backwater of the Thames. The bridge does raise the thought of it being deliberately built to allow traffic.

 

Haven't a clue, but a lovely picture. That sign would reveal much, but Carl has done that.

 

If not a natural river, then I was thinking Fen/ Navigable drain maybe Lincolnshire/ Cambridgeshire/ Norfolk or somewhere like that. Bridge does look like it is intended to pass boats.

Edited December 19, 2012 by antarmike