Talk:Canals of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Archive 1

New routes

Which new routes are under constuction? The ribble link has been completed and I'm not aware of anything else new.Geni 12:47, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are proposed plans for canals (subject to funds) in Slough, Maidenhead, Lichfield, Milton Keynes and Manchester to name but a few, how many of these become a reality remains to be seen, but most look likely. Grunners 13:30, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Good luck with your challenge of adding a page for every British canal! Shout if you need help! Grunners 13:33, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Updated new routes list Grunners 15:21, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Portsmouth - London "new route" isn't a new route...it's a proposed restoration of the Wey - Arun canal / navigations. In fact, this is the only canal owned by the National Trust. That is, unless someone has proposed a new canal from this route to somewhere near Portsmouth...can't see why though, although the flatness of the terrain from about Arundel to Chichester would make it not that difficult if the funds were available.

I'd assume the latter, seeing as the restoration would be a London - Godalming route, getting no where near Portsmouth. Grunners 09:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed not a new route – the restoration of the Wey & Arun Canal (and implicitly the Arun Navigation) is sometimes described as restoring the route from London to Portsmouth, somewhat misleadingly as it ignores the vital Portsmouth and Arundel Canal. StephenDawson 12:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Disused Canals Undergoing Restoration

I think this may be going to case a problem. Where should the line be drawn here? most of the themes and severn is closed but short streches are open. Where does that go?Geni 16:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it should be defined as canals which have been fully abandoned but which are undergoing work with a view to being reopened. Those canals such as the Thames & Severn which are part open should IMO go in the lists at the top of the page. Just my opinion though, and I agree that for the next decade or so there will be many canals which have fallen partly into disrepair but are also partly open.

You seem to know more than I so I'll leave the final decision in your hands. Grunners 07:56, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On second thoughts, we could just stick them all in the top list and just note their state of use and repair on their individual pages? Your call buddy! Grunners 08:02, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd still like to leave abonded canals sperate since there are a few that are now under cities and such. I tend to feel that anything else should go in the top list though (if only to save time in the long run :-) )Geni 10:20, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done :) Grunners 15:19, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Photographs

I'm searching out some of my own photos and some online that can be used legally. Anyone have any of their own? Grunners 09:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm planning to email some local canal socireties about this.Geni 16:45, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Douglas Navigation, Lancashire

I think this counts as a river rather than a canal.Geni 17:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Width of narrowboats?

How wide are the narrowboats, and the locks through which they go?

There are more than one standard width - what are the other common widths?

Syd1435 04:52, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

About 6 foot ten inches wide. Locks should be 7 feet wide but not all of them are.Geni 08:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Depends on what usage the canal had during its 'working' days, as Geni says most are of a certain width but some are smaller, hence the invention of narrowboats as barges were too large. Grunners 22:37, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My fairly recently built narrow boat is 6foot 10inches wide, plus about 3 inches for the pipe fenders, but the free space when in a narrow lock can be anything from a very little to as much as 6 inches on each side. The width of a lock can change over time, due to ground movement and this can require their rebuilding. The tightest lock currently is probably Hurlestone bottom lock at the entrance to the Llangollen Canal, where users are told by a notice to raise their fenders and jammings are fairly common. Traditional boats can also spread over time from the pressure of the loads they carried. They were often fitted with cross chains and bottle screws so that they could be "squeezed" if necessary. Modern pleasure boats rarely suffer from this as they are in effect a rigid steel tube. When the south Stratford canal was restored in the 1960s several locks were pretty tight and a list was maintained at the entrance lock of boats which had stuck to avoid a repeat. --Hymers2 (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why remove link?

Hi there. Why was the external link UK Canals Network removed from this article? I neither put it there nor have anything to do with the site, but have checked it out and it seems a useful link. JackyR 12:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

History shows it was removed by Geni, best to enquire on his talk page. Grunners 16:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User:212.100.250.213 spamed that link accross about a dozen pages.Geni 20:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. But it's useful for this page, and this page is an appropriate place for it (I'm guessing you pulled it out of specific canal pages). So it'll restore it here only. Cheers JackyR 23:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thames barges

I'm wondering whether to include Thames sailing barges on the list of canal boats, because the Thames and Medway Canal was specifically built to take the 60-tonners with their masts dropped. Of course, the boats also plied the two rivers and the Thames estuary, so they're not solely canal boats. What do people think? JackyR 17:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No Northern Ireland...?

This so-called "list of canals in the united kingdom" completely omits Northern Ireland! --feline1 16:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is stated that the NI canals are on the Canals of Ireland page, as it makes more sense to have them grouped with other canalson the same island. This page however should probably be renamed Canals of Great Britain. Grunners 13:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. It's quite insulting otherwise! And since the canals of great britain and northern ireland are merely separated by sea, they are still inter-navigable ;-)--feline1 14:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

It would be nice to have an infobox for British canals. It could include information like location, places served, length (original/planned + currently open to navigation), and what canals/rivers they connects with. Would anyone be able to design one? Blisco 07:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think thats a good idea. How about something like this

{{{British Canal}}}

{{{caption}}}
Name:	{{{example}}}
Length:
Date Chartered:
Date Completed:
Places Served:
Adjoining Canals:
Adjoining Navigable Rivers:
Status:	{{{Abandonded}}}

Any ideas on what else needs including Ydam 16:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! A field for "Current navigable length" would be useful too. The "Status" field might be difficult to complete succinctly for some canals: take the Lancaster Canal, where most of it is in use, part of it is in water but inaccessible, and part of it is abandoned and partly filled in. It should be possible to come up with a set wording though. In fact looking at the coding it seems there's a space for footnotes, which should solve most problems. Otherwise I reckon it can be templatised and put into use. -- Blisco 10:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Date Completed is also going to have some oditities.Geni 14:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Lord Ward's canal

Anyone know what state it is in?Geni 01:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking state as in the USA - none; if you're talking navigability, then the bit in the Black Country Living Museum is navigable, as is the link to theDudley Canal, but the direct link to the BCN is long filled in and built over (more than 30 years).Pyrotec 16:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Navigable Rivers

Should navigable rivers be included in this page? This would seem a better place than in the Rivers of the United Kingdom article, as navigable rivers are quite relevant to the canals, with many canals built just to link rivers directly or indirectly. Starsean 11:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Their history is very different though. Probably better to put them in with Rivers of the United Kingdom.Geni 12:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

We really need an infobox to be developed to help improve the various Canal articles! There's one above but don't think it is operational. Jhamez84 00:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Project proposal

I prose a Waterways of the United Kingdom project (along the lines of the UK Railways Project). Please add your support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Waterways of the United Kingdom. Andy Mabbett 14:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fens Waterways Link

Is this a canal to go in the list on this page, or more of a route or project? It's already lower down, in the intended new works section. Comment requested. --Old Moonraker 19:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Withdraw this question: it's not opening for another seven years. Plenty of time in which to think about it! --Old Moonraker 10:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Titchfield Canal

Should it be included in the list? Not totaly certian it was used for trasport although it did have a sea lock.Geni 18:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the Titchfield Historical Society have a meeting October 16th, "Titchfield Canal - what was it for? - open debate" [1] Derek Andrews 16:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Map

Does anyone have, or would be able to make, a map showing the routes of all the canals and navigatable rivers in GB? That would be an extremely useful addition to this article Grunners 20:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

tricky. Might be doable for sections of the county but the whole country would be hard.Geni 22:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't be impossible though - maps like this exist on a few websites, and Nicholson publish a paper map of this.--feline1 14:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes but they are protected by copyright. For sections of the country you could adapt OS maps that are over 50 years old but the whole country would be tricky.Geni 14:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Lydney Canal

I have added a new page Lydney Canal and added it to the list here. Question is, is it really a canal? Historically it seems to be referred to as a canal, but more recently as docks and harbour. Francis Frith uses all three terms in his photo collection from the 1960's[2].

Any thoughts as to whether or not it really belongs here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Andrews (talk • contribs) 14:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sure it belongs here. It is described in Paget-Tomlinson, Edward W. (2006) [1978]. The Illustrated History of Canal & River Navigations. Landmark Publihing Ltd. ISBN 1-84306-207-0. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help). Oosoom ^Talk to me 22:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OS map 1946 thinks it is called Lydney Harbour but then it also draws a railway over it so I'm not sure that means much.Geni 13:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

At one point there was a rail/tramway line down both sides of the harbour. Derek Andrews 14:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the map is at Image:Lydney map 1946.jpg. Don't know if it is of any use.Geni 15:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Construction

An anonymous editor has just placed a paragraph about navvies in the section on History of Commercial carrying. I don't think this is the place for this information, though I do think that there should be a section about the construction of canals, canal mania etc. Some of the wording in this new paragraph is perhaps not NPOV. Derek Andrews 00:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That kind of thing should be in History of the British canal system.Geni 03:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed canal routes

I assume this section, Canals_of_Great_Britain#Proposed_canal_routes is for current proposals, not historic ones. Unless anyone knows different, I think the London to Portsmouth should be deleted from this section. Derek Andrews 14:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Abandoned canals

It seems that since it was last tidied up, the lists of canals have become muddled again. There are several canals in the canals of England list that are completely built over, and therefore will never become navigable again, and should therefore surely be in the abandoned canals list. Grunners 10:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, there are canals listed in the canals of England list that are not yet in existence! We need to give the entire list a complete overhaul, and sort in to navigable, unnavigable, abandoned (and no chance of reopening) and proposed. Grunners 10:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I suspect that it is the lack of definition of the intent of these sections which has led to the confusion. However, I do wonder how 'abandoned (and no chance of reopening)' is going to work. (When I first got involved in canals, many that are now being restored (wilts and berks etc) would have been thought to belong in this category). Then there are canals which are partly navigable, partly restored, partly no hope whatsoever. May I suggest then that we switch to just one list, and annotate each canal (briefly) with its current status? This will allow for much more flexibility, allowing for those overlaps, and giving the reader a much clearer understanding of the true status. For example:

• xxx canal (fully navigable)
• yyy canal (northern end navigable, southern end under restoration)
• zzz canal (abandoned, route lost to roads and buildings)
• aaa & bbb canal (under restoration, some pounds navigable)
• ccc & ddd canal (abandonded, some structures being preserved)
• eee canal (now part of the fff canal)

I am sure there are more options, but I hope it shows how this might be beneficial -- Derek Andrews 11:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and perhaps with the below suggestion, we are set for a complete overhaul of this article? I'm currently going throughe every canal on the list adding a link back to this article, half way there! Grunners 13:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And while we are at it, should we consider changing the title from 'canals' to 'inland waterways' or 'inland navigations'? Derek Andrews 00:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Move the lists?

In my opinion, this page is dominated by lists and they should each be removed to their own page. They would leave behind the sub-heading and a link to the list page. To this would be added an overview of the topic and where applicable a gallery of photos. For example:

==Aqueducts==

Canal aqueducts are structures that carry the canal across a valley or a man-made cutting for a road or railway. Their size and construction method varies considerably.

Dundas aqueduct, built of stone in a classical style.

Pontcysyllte aqueduct; an iron trough on tall stone piers.

Barton Swing Aqueduct carries the Bridgewater Canal and swings open to let ships pass on the Manchester Ship Canal below.

For more, see List of canal aqueducts in Great Britain

It needs expanding a little and tidying up, but I trust y'all get the idea. Comments please. -- Derek Andrews 12:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The lists are also now mostly replicas of categories, such as Category:Canals in England, except that if not kept up-to-date, they'll be out of sync. At least the categories are automatically kept up-to-date. Perhaps linking to them would be better? Hmallett 09:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have been working on the Aqueducts and the Locks part under Canal Features. They now basically just describe what these features are, and link to appropriate articles. They also link to List of canal aqueducts in Great Britain and List of canal locks in Great Britain. The latter is my favored format and I will modify the former to match. Essentially a table of notable locks with other basic information, sufficient for the reader to see what is special about the lock and why they might want to read its main article. There is a See Also to Category:Locks of the United Kingdom. On the locks page I have excluded some locks which were in the original list on the basis that I could find nothing note worthy about them. Derek Andrews 10:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This page should not contain galleries.Geni 22:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Red links heading for extinction

I've created a few articles of varying length for red-linked canals, only five left now! Grunners 15:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Cannot find any information on Cinderford Canal, other than that all red links have disappeared! Grunners 13:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Here are a few references to Cinderford Canal: [3] (references The Canals of South Wales and the Border by Charles Hadfield), [4], but nothing very useful. I'm not sure it was a navigation, but rather a leat for a mill? It's not listed in Lost Canals by Russell. My feeling is to leave it out until someone writes an article on it. Derek Andrews 14:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ouse Navigation

Does this warrant its own article, or should it redirect to the River Ouse article? Grunners 13:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't find an article with that title, even spelled correctly. Which Ouse are you referring to? Derek Andrews 13:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a red link on this article, and on googling it it seems to be parts of one of the River Ouse's simply widened and deepened. Grunners 16:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly River Ouse, Sussex needs to be expanded to include a history of the navigation, and the ongoing battle between restoration and conservation. Could be interesting:) It was 22 miles and 19 locks so a little more than widening and deepening [5] and [6]. If the article gets too heavy on the navigation side, then is the time to divide it up. Derek Andrews 00:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Have written a section for the river article, and redirected the canal link there Grunners 16:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)