The only lock on the Ashby (with a few pics)

[Guest]

As for other locks built with intermediate gates to save water - I think a lot of the Rochdale canal was built with this in mind but the gates were never fitted, and it was fairly common when building larger locks not just for water saving but for speed of operation. Pollington Lock may have been extended but Sykehouses on the New Junction was built very long and had intermediate gates from new. I think Teddington Barge Lock has intermediate gates and they won't be for saving water - it isn't in short supply at that point.

I seem to recall the newer lock at Whitley that replaced the shorter adjacent one is the same and was built with intermediate gates when first constructed, rather than built short then extended but I'm not 100% on that.

 

ed. just dug out Mike Taylor's book which seems to confirm this, but of course the whole purpose of that newer lock was to accommodate much longer vessels so it would have been illogical not to build it the correct length in the first place.

 

The other thing about some of these locks is that they have embayments (clearly seen in this aerial shot from Google earth of Whitley) which further increased capacity allowing vessels to pass set along side other vessels. There is a good shot in Mike's book showing this being done in Pollington lock.

 

Edited November 10, 2014 by The Dog House

[Tony Dunkley]

As has been stated the intermediate gates are to save water - when the lock was built it was anticipated it would see a lot of use by small boats until the Moira furnace length was connected to the main system.

 

The lock is wide because the Ashby canal is "wide" - had the proposed locks to Ashby ever been built they would have been wide, had the Ashby ever connected with the Trent it would have been wide. There were no locks to base a precedent on so a wide lock was chosen. This had already been stipulated in a feasibility study completed in 1993 for restoration from Snarestone to Moira. Locks were considered at several locations (generally with a fall of inches rather than feet) and they would have been broad - two boats at once rather than expecting wide beam boats*

 

Whilst the road necessitated the drop at this precise location mining subsidence would have meant a drop somewhere

 

I was involved in all the above with Jim Saunders in the early 1990's when I worked for Atkins

 

*these days, the argument probably would be about allowing wide beams to navigate - twenty years makes a lot of difference in that respect.

 

As for other locks built with intermediate gates to save water - I think a lot of the Rochdale canal was built with this in mind but the gates were never fitted, and it was fairly common when building larger locks not just for water saving but for speed of operation. Pollington Lock may have been extended but Sykehouses on the New Junction was built very long and had intermediate gates from new. I think Teddington Barge Lock has intermediate gates and they won't be for saving water - it isn't in short supply at that point.

 

edited to add - intermediate gates only really work if the lock either side of the gates is a useable length or if generally only the shorter length is used (as at Tuel Lane)

 

Yes, I agree, time and not water saving would be the primary consideration, especially on a river or a canal with a good feed from a river.

[IanM]

On a little bit of a tangent...

 

Quite a few of the locks on the Brimscombe to Inglesham section of the Thames and Severn were shortened from 90ft to 70ft to save water. However rather than install another set of bottom gates allowing 2 different lengths of boat to be used, the way these locks were shortened was to move the top gates and cill by constructing an arch in the chamber (which allowed the existing culverts to be used) thus permanently shortening the lock.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Locks where an extra set of gates was installed expressly to save water - Probably none.

 

Locks where an extra set of gates was RETAINED when the lock was extended to accomodate larger craft (or as you pointed out trains of craft) - a few.

 

When they extended the A&C locks for the trains of Tom Puddings, they could have removed the intermediate gates, but instead they retained them (and the resultant maintenance cost) for water saving purposes.

 

How can you be sure of that ? I wasn't around at the time the A&C locks were enlarged to take compartment boat trains, and neither were you, so the best we can both do is an informed guess about the reason for leaving intermediate sets of gates in. Water conservation may have been seen as possible bonus in an exceptionally dry spell, but I would think, given the virtually unlimited feed available from the Aire (and the Calder) at Ferrybridge, the primary consideration in those days would be speed of operation.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Tony Dunkley

[David Mack]

intermediate gates only really work if the lock either side of the gates is a useable length or if generally only the shorter length is used (as at Tuel Lane)

At Tuel Lane they normally use the top and intermediate gates which will accommodate boats up to about 60ft long. For 70 footers they have to use the bottom gates. As these are rarely wetted they have dried out and leak like a sieve, so a 70 footer presumably uses much more water than shorter boats.

 

It would have been better to have put the intermediate gates near the top gates, so that the middle and bottom gates would normally be used (and no posibility of cilling either).

 

I have wondered whether they use the middle and bottom gates for boats less than 20 ft long.

[Tony Dunkley]

As has been stated the intermediate gates are to save water - when the lock was built it was anticipated it would see a lot of use by small boats until the Moira furnace length was connected to the main system.

 

The lock is wide because the Ashby canal is "wide" - had the proposed locks to Ashby ever been built they would have been wide, had the Ashby ever connected with the Trent it would have been wide. There were no locks to base a precedent on so a wide lock was chosen. This had already been stipulated in a feasibility study completed in 1993 for restoration from Snarestone to Moira. Locks were considered at several locations (generally with a fall of inches rather than feet) and they would have been broad - two boats at once rather than expecting wide beam boats*

 

Whilst the road necessitated the drop at this precise location mining subsidence would have meant a drop somewhere

 

I was involved in all the above with Jim Saunders in the early 1990's when I worked for Atkins

 

*these days, the argument probably would be about allowing wide beams to navigate - twenty years makes a lot of difference in that respect.

 

As for other locks built with intermediate gates to save water - I think a lot of the Rochdale canal was built with this in mind but the gates were never fitted, and it was fairly common when building larger locks not just for water saving but for speed of operation. Pollington Lock may have been extended but Sykehouses on the New Junction was built very long and had intermediate gates from new. I think Teddington Barge Lock has intermediate gates and they won't be for saving water - it isn't in short supply at that point.

 

edited to add - intermediate gates only really work if the lock either side of the gates is a useable length or if generally only the shorter length is used (as at Tuel Lane)

 

I'm interested by the point you make about the (Ashby) canal being a 'wide' waterway, and have good reason to believe that to be correct, having been told in the 1960's by two boatmen, both of whom could trace their family lineage on the canals back through many generations, that wide boats had at one time used that cut between Hinckley and Moira, though I think both of them said the boats had rounded sides and were more like 10 to 12 foot beam rather than 14 foot. On one of the occasions this was mentioned we both had good chuckle about it and questioned the practicality of using wide boats up there, as at the time we were both engaged in trying to get his pair of empty boats past my loaded ones going the opposite way, somewhere near Stoke Golding I think, but it was a long time ago. Having said that though, I really can't see any sense at all in building a new wide lock to encourage wide boats on to an isolated 30 mile length of uprated ditch which they can only leave or arrive in hanging on a crane hook.

[Timleech]

Derailing the topic even further, can anyone cast light on the fact that two locks on the Calder & Hebble, within the 57 foot section, have been lengthened in the past? One to double length, and one to about 70'?

Sorry, I can't remember exactly which locks.

 

Tim

[Guest]

I'm interested by the point you make about the (Ashby) canal being a 'wide' waterway, and have good reason to believe that to be correct, having been told in the 1960's by two boatmen, both of whom could trace their family lineage on the canals back through many generations, that wide boats had at one time used that cut between Hinckley and Moira, though I think both of them said the boats had rounded sides and were more like 10 to 12 foot beam rather than 14 foot. On one of the occasions this was mentioned we both had good chuckle about it and questioned the practicality of using wide boats up there, as at the time we were both engaged in trying to get his pair of empty boats past my loaded ones going the opposite way, somewhere near Stoke Golding I think, but it was a long time ago. Having said that though, I really can't see any sense at all in building a new wide lock to encourage wide boats on to an isolated 30 mile length of uprated ditch which they can only leave or arrive in hanging on a crane hook.

Wide boats can be slipped into the Ashby.

 

http://www.ashbycanal.org.uk/slipway.html

[Tony Dunkley]

Wide boats can be slipped into the Ashby.

 

http://www.ashbycanal.org.uk/slipway.html

Not the sort of wide boats I'm talking about, obviously.

[magpie patrick]

Derailing the topic even further, can anyone cast light on the fact that two locks on the Calder & Hebble, within the 57 foot section, have been lengthened in the past? One to double length, and one to about 70'?

Sorry, I can't remember exactly which locks.

 

Tim

 

Broad cut low lock has intermediate gates with the combined chamber being about 130 feet, the gates being about half way along. I think the lower gates are no longer useable. Broad Cut Low is seperated from Thornes lock (which is also about 130 foot long by Thornes flood lock, whihc is only about 65 feet long.

 

I can only think it wasn't felt to be worth lengthening a flood lock, as it would normally be level. This would be particularly true if the lengthenings were to allow tow boats through at once rather than one very long boat. The symmetrical nature of the lenthening may indicate this was the case.

 

I'm interested by the point you make about the (Ashby) canal being a 'wide' waterway, and have good reason to believe that to be correct, having been told in the 1960's by two boatmen, both of whom could trace their family lineage on the canals back through many generations, that wide boats had at one time used that cut between Hinckley and Moira, though I think both of them said the boats had rounded sides and were more like 10 to 12 foot beam rather than 14 foot. On one of the occasions this was mentioned we both had good chuckle about it and questioned the practicality of using wide boats up there, as at the time we were both engaged in trying to get his pair of empty boats past my loaded ones going the opposite way, somewhere near Stoke Golding I think, but it was a long time ago. Having said that though, I really can't see any sense at all in building a new wide lock to encourage wide boats on to an isolated 30 mile length of uprated ditch which they can only leave or arrive in hanging on a crane hook.

 

That is interesting, I didn't know that (the bit in bold). There is no doubt the original plan was for a wide canal, as with some others, a triumph of optimism over reality?

 

I don't think we (Jim Saunders and I) decided on the wide lock, but the client wanted it. That said the idea wasn't so daft as to warrant warning against it. All other things being equal a wide lock costs about 15% more than a narrow lock to build

Edited November 10, 2014 by magpie patrick

[Guest]

Not the sort of wide boats I'm talking about, obviously.

Obviously, really?

 

Maybe you should take a leaf out of your own book Tony.

[dmr]

Don't some (or at least one) locks on the Weaver have a middle set of gates??? in addition to some having big locks and small locks???

And possibly one at Teddington???. And Salters Lode but that's very different.

 

...............Dave

[Timleech]

Don't some (or at least one) locks on the Weaver have a middle set of gates??? in addition to some having big locks and small locks???

And possibly one at Teddington???. And Salters Lode but that's very different.

 

...............Dave

 

Lots of the Weaver locks have had intermediate gates in the past, some still exist but none are (is?) usable.

 

Tim

[Timleech]

 

Broad cut low lock has intermediate gates with the combined chamber being about 130 feet, the gates being about half way along. I think the lower gates are no longer useable. Broad Cut Low is seperated from Thornes lock (which is also about 130 foot long by Thornes flood lock, whihc is only about 65 feet long.

 

I can only think it wasn't felt to be worth lengthening a flood lock, as it would normally be level. This would be particularly true if the lengthenings were to allow tow boats through at once rather than one very long boat. The symmetrical nature of the lenthening may indicate this was the case.

 

Shepley Bridge lock is the one I was thinking of, it has been double length at some time, and one of the adjacent locks (Greenwood?) has clear evidence of a third pair of gates and is IIRC about 70' long now.

 

Tim

[magpie patrick]

 

Shepley Bridge lock is the one I was thinking of, it has been double length at some time, and one of the adjacent locks (Greenwood?) has clear evidence of a third pair of gates and is IIRC about 70' long now.

 

Tim

 

Just had a look on Google Earth (which doesn't name the locks of course): yes, some above the Dewsbury-Broad Cut length are quite a bit longer than the locks such as Double. Where they are double length, (as one lock is or has been) it does suggest allowing for two boats. For lengths around 70-80 foot, I don't know.

[rrt2]

I have seen a lock with two sets of gates in Northern France somewhere - next to a boat lift which is currently not in use. It was explained to me that one set would take "smaller" barges (up to Freycinet size I suppose), the other would come into its own when even larger barges wished to go through.

 

So why was the Ashby lock built broad?

The Fontinettes boat lift on the Canal de Neufosse,near Saint Omer in the Pas-de-Calais

[mayalld]

 

How can you be sure of that ? I wasn't around at the time the A&C locks were enlarged to take compartment boat trains, and neither were you, so the best we can both do is an informed guess about the reason for leaving intermediate sets of gates in. Water conservation may have been seen as possible bonus in an exceptionally dry spell, but I would think, given the virtually unlimited feed available from the Aire (and the Calder) at Ferrybridge, the primary consideration in those days would be speed of operation.

I don't discount speed as another factor.

 

However, can you account for continuing to renew the intermediate gates?

[Tony Dunkley]

I don't discount speed as another factor.

 

However, can you account for continuing to renew the intermediate gates?

 

Perhaps they've done so for the sake of saving water so it can pour over the weirs in the Aire and the bypasses at the locks in the usual large quantities instead.

 

You don't have a monopoly on muddled thinking, you know.

[Athy]

The Fontinettes boat lift on the Canal de Neufosse,near Saint Omer in the Pas-de-Calais

That's the one, yes, thank you. I kept thinking of "Fonserannes" which is a different animal in a different place.

[Timleech]

 

Just had a look on Google Earth (which doesn't name the locks of course): yes, some above the Dewsbury-Broad Cut length are quite a bit longer than the locks such as Double. Where they are double length, (as one lock is or has been) it does suggest allowing for two boats. For lengths around 70-80 foot, I don't know.

 

A double length lock to cope with particularly heavy local traffic I can understand, but having one lock on its own lengthened (it clearly has been) from 57' to 70' seems odd. It's the only one that I noticed where that had been done.

 

Going further off, what are the extra recesses in the lock chambers at the Eastern end of the Rochdale? I don't recall them having shaped sockets for heel posts, though they may once have been gate recesses, they are about the right size. Was the eastern end started as a 57' navigation?

 

Tim

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I'm interested by the point you make about the (Ashby) canal being a 'wide' waterway, and have good reason to believe that to be correct, having been told in the 1960's by two boatmen, both of whom could trace their family lineage on the canals back through many generations, that wide boats had at one time used that cut between Hinckley and Moira, though I think both of them said the boats had rounded sides and were more like 10 to 12 foot beam rather than 14 foot. On one of the occasions this was mentioned we both had good chuckle about it and questioned the practicality of using wide boats up there, as at the time we were both engaged in trying to get his pair of empty boats past my loaded ones going the opposite way, somewhere near Stoke Golding I think, but it was a long time ago. Having said that though, I really can't see any sense at all in building a new wide lock to encourage wide boats on to an isolated 30 mile length of uprated ditch which they can only leave or arrive in hanging on a crane hook.

 

 

That is interesting, I didn't know that (the bit in bold). There is no doubt the original plan was for a wide canal, as with some others, a triumph of optimism over reality?

 

I don't think we (Jim Saunders and I) decided on the wide lock, but the client wanted it. That said the idea wasn't so daft as to warrant warning against it. All other things being equal a wide lock costs about 15% more than a narrow lock to build

 

This canal, the 'Moira Cut' rather than the Ashby Canal, as it was always referred to by boatmen, was with the exception of the odd bridges length or two, generally 'better,going', from Hinckley to the top end than between Hinckley and Bedworth. Maybe just a coincidence, but possibly built originally just that bit 'bigger'.

A while after posting this yesterday I also remembered the lockeeper at Buckby back then, Henry Grantham mentioning the use of wideboats on the Moira cut. Henry was a former 'number one' ( owner/boatman) who had traded with horseboats supplying coal from off this canal to the paper mills down the Grand Union. The wide boats he'd been told about were way back before his time, but I'm fairly sure what he said about them was the same as the other two boatmen I mentioned yesterday, both of whom were descended from generations of other owner/boatmen engaged in the same trade. There was a short arm to a wharf at Hinckley which suggests that at some time there could have been a substantial tonnage handled there. I'm not sure how to find out more about this, but I wondered if, in view of your profession, you may have any suggestions to follow up?

Edited November 11, 2014 by Tony Dunkley

[Athy]

The arm to the Hinckley town wharf is still there. I think it's used for private moorings nowadays.

Have we no members of the Ashby Canal Association on CWF who could perhaps tell us more about these wide boats?

[magpie patrick]

 

This canal, the 'Moira Cut' rather than the Ashby Canal, as it was always referred to by boatmen, was with the exception of the odd bridges length or two, generally 'better,going', from Hinckley to the top end than between Hinckley and Bedworth. Maybe just a coincidence, but possibly built originally just that bit 'bigger'.

A while after posting this yesterday I also remembered the lockeeper at Buckby back then, Henry Grantham mentioning the use of wideboats on the Moira cut. Henry was a former 'number one' ( owner/boatman) who had traded with horseboats supplying coal from off this canal to the paper mills down the Grand Union. The wide boats he'd been told about were way back before his time, but I'm fairly sure what he said about them was the same as the other two boatmen I mentioned yesterday, both of whom were descended from generations of other owner/boatmen engaged in the same trade. There was a short arm to a wharf at Hinckley which suggests that at some time there could have been a substantial tonnage handled there. I'm not sure how to find out more about this, but I wondered if, in view of your profession, you may have any suggestions to follow up?

 

I'm just acknowledging this as I do have some ideas but your question deserves more time than I can give it tonight: I'll be back tomorrow sometime!

[MoominPapa]

The Ship Canal locks have intermediate gates. I have no idea if they're usable: they certainly weren't used when we took a narrowboat through.

 

MP.