Building Britains Canal's - Sabatage at Wolverton!

[1st ade]

I loved the first episode of "Building Britain's Canals", not least as most of the story of the Grand Junction was around my neck of the woods, Wolverton (although I think the Iron Aqueduct at Cosgrove was, if anything, overdone)

 

I was interested in the rivalry between the canal and railway companies and (at least as Channel 5 explained it) that the railway company snook out at night to build a bridge over the canal only for the canal company to snook out at night and demolish it! From context I think this was bridge 71A (https://canalplan.org.uk/place/qahv)

 

Does anyone have more information on this? I've lived in the area over 30 years (and walk the dog under said bridge several times a week) and this is the first I've heard of it.

[MoominPapa]

13 hours ago, 1st ade said:

I was interested in the rivalry between the canal and railway companies and (at least as Channel 5 explained it) that the railway company snook out at night to build a bridge over the canal only for the canal company to snook out at night and demolish it! From context I think this was bridge 71A (https://canalplan.org.uk/place/qahv)

I didn't see the program, but if the dispute was during the original building of the railway, it's unlikely to be 71A as that's on a later diversion of the railway taking it away from the original route which had become inconvenient as it bisected Wolverton works which had grown up on either side of the line.

 

MP.

 

ETA: better candidates would be 69A or 70.

Edited July 1, 2018 by MoominPapa

[alan_fincher]

I didn't see the program but it apperas there may be some truth in the story......

 

From this article.

 

 

Quote

 

History repeats itself

So the Wolverton station building project looks as though it could be settled in Court, just as was the construction in 1834 of the original station after a bout of fisticuffs broke out between his workers and canal workers at Christmas that year over Robert Stephenson’s railway bridge over the Grand Union Canal. This is fully described in the Wolverton 175th anniversary book due out in September.

 

 

[1st ade]

1 hour ago, MoominPapa said:

ETA: better candidates would be 69A or 70.

Thanks - I'll go and re-watch on catchup (with pause button in hand)

47 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

This is fully described in the Wolverton 175th anniversary book due out in September.

Now that I have to get!

 

(I'm aware of the fun and games over the new station - I made myself unpopular at the time by pointing out that it was opened by visiting dignitaries at a time when it would normally have been closed to the public)

[Heartland]

Alan Faulkener describes the incident in his Grand Junction Canal Book (D & C 1972). referring to Stephenson (presumably Robert) The railway wanted to build a temporary bridge over the Grand Junction at Wolverton, which meant driving piles into the canal banks. The Grand Junction disputed the right to erect this bridge. Stephenson assembled a strong workforce and began building the bridge on the night of 23 December 1834. They worked non stop and had finished this bridge midday Christmas day. Thomas Lake, the northern district engineer, came to this bridge with a strong body of canal employees and proceeded to demolish the bridge completely. The matter was settled in the Court of Chancery when the railway obtained an injunction to prevent the Grand Junction from destroying any of the railway works.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Heartland

[1st ade]

1 hour ago, Heartland said:

Alan Faulkener describes the incident in his Grand Junction Canal Book (D & C 1972). referring to Stephenson (presumably Robert) The railway wanted to build a temporary bridge over the Grand Junction at Wolverton, which meant driving piles into the canal banks. The Grand Junction disputed the right to erect this bridge. Stephenson assembled a strong workforce and began building the bridge on the night of 23 December 1834. They worked non stop and had finished this bridge midday Christmas day. Thomas Lake, the northern district engineer, came to this bridge with a strong body of canal employees and proceeded to demolish the bridge completely. The matter was settled in the Court of Chancery when the railway obtained an injunction to prevent the Grand Junction from destroying any of the railway works.

Thanks Heartland - pretty much all the detail I could have asked for. Much appreciated.

[Heartland]

I have a suspicion that this legal decision set a precedent for other railway companies to build temporary structures across canals. In BCN records there are instances of canals being stopped, or navigation restricted, to enable construction of railways. Railway bridges varied in design and their construction was also dictated by the width of the waterway. Sometimes the canal had to be diverted to enable the railway to be made, but this event, of more complicated infrastructure change, was often dictated by the act of parliament and the surveys. 

 

Whilst Wolverton was an early test of canal company resolve, There were earlier railways. It would be of interest to see how the Liverpool & Manchester Railway built their bridge over the Mersey & Irwell Navigation. 

[Heartland]

I had a look at the Morning Post account which reproduced the Rolls Court proceedings for January 17th 1835. The lawyer for the LBR a Mr Pemberton argued the case for the LBR stating the wooden bridge was to be used for moving earth from the southside of the canal to the north side and a valley there. Piles were to be put into the hilly side of the water. A temporary bridge was erected on 8th November 1834, and a permanent bridge was planned. The GJC objected to the LBR right to erect the bridge or bridges. The LBR went ahead with the other bridge and boats passed under the bridge with ease as before. The GJC pulled down this bridge and the LBR filed a bill on January 12th 1835, the GJC replied with affidavits on 16th January. The driving of piles had not apparently injured the canal. Sir Charles Wetherell for the GJC noted the carting of large quantities of earth (1,000,000 cu yards) had never been contemplated by the canal company. He acknowledged the LBR had the perfect right to erect a permanent bridge for their trains, but no right for a temporary one. It may have been cheaper for the contractor to do so , but mr Wetherall wanted to know why the permanent bridge had not been made, especially as the weather had been kind in the summers of 1833 and 1834. The piles it was also said had damaged the canal. 

 

So this was an early test case for the respective might of railways and canals. The Judge deferred judgement but granted the injunction the next day.

 

The very profitable speculation, which the learned Judge, may have had shares in, was evidently a deciding factor!   

[David Mack]

Sounds like a lack of foresight on the part of the draftsmen of the LBR Act, in that they included powers to build the permanent railway bridge over the canal, but failed to include provision for temporary works needed during construction.

[AMModels]

On 02/07/2018 at 09:17, Heartland said:

I have a suspicion that this legal decision set a precedent for other railway companies to build temporary structures across canals. In BCN records there are instances of canals being stopped, or navigation restricted, to enable construction of railways. Railway bridges varied in design and their construction was also dictated by the width of the waterway. Sometimes the canal had to be diverted to enable the railway to be made, but this event, of more complicated infrastructure change, was often dictated by the act of parliament and the surveys. 

 

Whilst Wolverton was an early test of canal company resolve, There were earlier railways. It would be of interest to see how the Liverpool & Manchester Railway built their bridge over the Mersey & Irwell Navigation. 

Two obvious ones I can think of Pratts Bridge and one on the Anglesey branch...Middleton iirc.

[1st ade]

21 hours ago, David Mack said:

Sounds like a lack of foresight on the part of the draftsmen of the LBR Act, in that they included powers to build the permanent railway bridge over the canal, but failed to include provision for temporary works needed during construction. 

Which of course no modern construction project would ever suffer from (We've had one or two on our patch but rather smaller / less publicity)

22 hours ago, Heartland said:

I had a look at the Morning Post account which reproduced the Rolls Court proceedings for January 17th 1835. The lawyer for the LBR a Mr Pemberton argued the case for the LBR stating the wooden bridge was to be used for moving earth from the southside of the canal to the north side and a valley there. Piles were to be put into the hilly side of the water. A temporary bridge was erected on 8th November 1834, and a permanent bridge was planned. The GJC objected to the LBR right to erect the bridge or bridges. The LBR went ahead with the other bridge and boats passed under the bridge with ease as before. The GJC pulled down this bridge and the LBR filed a bill on January 12th 1835, the GJC replied with affidavits on 16th January. The driving of piles had not apparently injured the canal. Sir Charles Wetherell for the GJC noted the carting of large quantities of earth (1,000,000 cu yards) had never been contemplated by the canal company. He acknowledged the LBR had the perfect right to erect a permanent bridge for their trains, but no right for a temporary one. It may have been cheaper for the contractor to do so , but mr Wetherall wanted to know why the permanent bridge had not been made, especially as the weather had been kind in the summers of 1833 and 1834. The piles it was also said had damaged the canal. 

 

So this was an early test case for the respective might of railways and canals. The Judge deferred judgement but granted the injunction the next day.

 

The very profitable speculation, which the learned Judge, may have had shares in, was evidently a deciding factor!   

Very interesting - and thank you.

 

A Million Cubic Yards sounds an awful lot. How does it stack up against a modern building project (I'm visualising a million Cu Yards as a cube 100 yards on a side or roughly a football field sized cube)?