Talk:Bridgewater Canal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

John Gilbert

I have found references which suggest that James Brindley deserves less credit for the design and construction of the Bridgewater canal than he generally recieves. The chief designers and motivating forces were Francis Egerton, the Third Duke of Bridgewater and his factor John Gilbert. Indeed the aqueduct over the Irwell which Brindley was responsible for nearly collapsed and was saved as a direct result of John Gilbert's intervention. My references is, Coal, Cotton and Canals by Hugh Malet. Hugh Malet's reference is a contemporary report in the journal of Sir Joseph Banks. Martin Cordon 22:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've run across references that much of the intial work was done by John Gilbert nothing about the aqueduct.Geni 23:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

BOCM?

"the last regular traffic being grain from Liverpool to Manchester for BOCM". What is/was BOCM?? If somebody knows, could (s)he add it to the article?
--Jotel 19:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• British Oil and Cake Mills, I believe, now part of BOCM Pauls a leading animal feed manufacturer. Martin Cordon 19:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Images added

I have added more than a few images of this canal to Wikimedia Commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bridgewater_Canal - if anyone would care to use them, please add them when you have time. Parrot of Doom 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Upstream

"the stretch of the MSC upstream from here". What does 'upstream' mean for a canal? Shouldn't it be replaced by something like 'west of here' ?? --Jotel 10:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Upstream isn't necessarily wrong on many sections of canals, refering simply to the (slow) flow of water from an upper pound or towards a lower pound. In the case of the MSC, the upper reaches have no lock at the head end, and are effectively the widened and deepened River Irwell, so upstream is appropriate.Mayalld 11:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Map

I've been creating a map here: [1], but I'm stuck with the formatting. Should I stagger the features where the Manc and Runcorn arms run together, or is it possible to create a map that has text down both sides? It will be a pretty darn long map once finished, there are many many crossings. Any help would be appreciated. Parrot of Doom 21:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be possible to create another BS template to allow left hand text, but probably easier to show the branch as a separate map.Mayalld 21:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be excellent if there could be a real map taht shows where the canal goes. The start points and end points are hard to find with various mapping software and it is very hard (for me at least) to get a sense of where things are going. Perhaps there are copyright issues with maps? Also, just putting in the length of the canal and it's segments would help. MichaelCYoung (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

New section of towpath

New bit of towpath, also : Bridgewater way Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Route

The section describing the route of the canal is all over the place. The description starts in the middle at Castlefield - although it says it terminates there, and at Worsley it sounds like it branches off towards Worsley and then Runcorn although from the map these are seperate arms and it splits and goes to Worsley one way and Runcorn the other way. It says later it goes through Sale and Lymm to Runcorn but as none of these are marked anywhere on the map it's difficult to work out where is being referred to. There is then a bit about the proposed new Mersey crossing and it's not clear where that is either. Couldn't the description begin at one end and follow the main route to the other end with sperate descriptions for the other branches?

I'm of the opinion that the route section is entirely spurious, unless there are notable features upon it - which for the most part, there aren't. I'm on holiday right now though and the last campsite didn't have mobile coverage so I haven't been able to continue on it, but I want to get it up to GA class eventually. Being the first industrial canal it deserves to be there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added what info I have about the history of the Runcorn end. It would be good to get it to GA but it's got a long way to go, particularly in its formatting. The history is all over the place and needs consolidating/rewriting. Perhaps the Worsley mines and the Barton aqueduct could be in a separate Special Features section. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

At the moment I'm just adding things on an ad-hoc basis, but once theres enough material in there I'll probably re-write the lot into something that makes a bit of sense :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

John Gilbert (again)

I've written a short article on John Gilbert which gets rid of a redlink. I found out more about him than I expected, and I suspect there is more information out there. But I'm not sure he merits the title of being the only "principal" engineer in the infobox. How about having both Brindley and Gilbert as principals and leaving the "assistant" slot empty? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not a subject I've read much about but from what I can gather there were 'questions' raised as to Brindley's expertise when it came to the construction of Barton Aqueduct? Wasn't he effectively rescued by someone else? I see no issue with putting different names in there though, fire away. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Reorganisation

I've changed the headings and moved an image to try and make a bit more sense of what we have. I intend to extend the section on the Bridgewater Trustees and hope other editors will be able to add material after 1872. I think the first section needs some rationalisation (I changed the title because more or less all the article is "History"). When we have done this and added more info to the later sections, I think the article will have promise! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks much better now. I'm going to read through and highlight a few things that need clarification, if others could do similar we can then have a direction in which to head to GA, and on to FAC. I think using this page may be a better means of improving the article, if we start listing what we see as 'wrong' with it, so it can be noted and corrected here - to help avoid editing conflicts.

• "The Duke of Bridgewater's mines supplied the surrounding districts with coal" - but not the only person

done Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• "persistent flooding" - the worsley navigable levels link doesn't contain the word flooding, so this needs a sentence to explain why it flooded

done Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The Duke had been to see the Canal du Midi in France" - will be difficult to know why and find a source, I think we can only presume he had an idea about a canal, and went to see others to see how they worked
• "and partly because it would make a link with Cheshire easier" - easier in what way? Presumably construction?

done Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• "over the Irwell at Barton-upon-Irwell at Longford Bridge near Stretford." - is there a missing 'and' there?

removed Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• "On 13 April 1844 The Times newspaper reported that the canal was to be emptied of water, and converted into a railway.[20] Although not unusual for this period in history, known as Railway Mania, the plan came to nothing." - This was a random bit of news I came across, I think it's trivial really but it might help if we could put this into better context.

moved to another section Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• "In 1789 the Duke's warehouse was badly damaged by fire, and, although rebuilt, was demolished in 1960" - I think the time period here is too large, perhaps the latter part about destruction might be better in a 'current status' section or similar.

moved to current status section Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There are also some issues with referencing, which would be easier dealt with now. I would suggest that the Harvnb template be used throughout, where referring to literary sources, especially as for FAC all sources need page numbers.

Theres nothing in the article yet about the reason for the connection to the Rochdale Canal, or the Leeds Liverpool Canal. I've come across material while doing the MBB canal that can expand upon this though so that should be fairly easy. And obviously the Leigh branch needs expanding significantly.

I've heard rumours that the canal had Manchester's first Bonded Warehouse along it's route, but haven't found any online material that proves this (other than that it was built in 1844, and isn't the Grape St one).

I think we also need a section on the design of the canal - materials used, coping stones (long sections now have none), width, depth, cuttings, embankments, aqueducts, stop-planks, etc.

Comments? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The bonded warehouse in't a rumour. The following two stories which I put on the Port of Manchester talk page some time ago are from the Times online archive. This is what Malleus was referring to when he mentioned it on the GM talk pageRicherman (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

FIRST ARRIVAL IN THE PORT OF MANCHESTER OF A CARGO OF GOODS FOR BOND

We have great pleasure in recording the first arrival in the Port of Manchester of a vessel, with an entire cargo of wines and spirits removed in bond, and for bonding in Manchester. The vessel, a flat named the Express, was wholly laden with a valuable cargo of wines and spirits, in all about 40 tons weight, belonging to Mr. William Gibb, spirit merchant, of this town, whose active and long-continued exertions in the struggle to obtain the privilege of bonding for this great and important borough are about to be acknowledged in the form of a substantial mark of respect and gratitude by his fellow-townsmen. The Express arrived from Liverpool on Saturday evening; but it was yesterday morning before she began to unload. She is lying in the Bridgewater Canal, Knott Mill where the Duke's trustees have constructed a large bonding vault, which Mr. Gibb has taken and had licensed for the purpose, and we believe he is now removing his stock of wine and spirits from other ports to Manchester, for the greater convenienoe of sampling and sale. The lockers, gaugers, and other officers of Customs were in attendance, superintending the unloading of the vessel and thus have commenced the operations of the Manchester Custom-house. It is a gratifying circumstance that a gentleman who took so prominent a part in the struggle to obtain the boon of bonding for Manchester should the first to enjoy the fruits of its success. We hope ere long to record the general operation of the system; though it will require a little time, perhaps, as it, must have a beginning.

— Manchester Guardian

MANCHESTER A BONDING PORT

After the pressing demands which have been made by some of our principal manufacturing towns for the privileges of inland bonded warehouses for goods subject to Customs duties, it would naturally be supposed that the formation of a Custom-house establishment at Manchester would have occasioned a vast quantity of business in that extensive seat of British manufacturers; but we are informed that the result is very different from what had been expected. Although the system has been introduced into Manchester only as an experiment and a large establishment has been formed entirely of old and experienced officers; under the impression that the extent of business there would require the constant services of well tried men, we believe that, up to the present period, little trade has passed through the Manchester Custom-house and the officers’ duties are nearly approaching to a sinecure. The total annual expense of this. Establishment, exclusive of that for the Custom-house and warehouse is 2,620. The town council of the borough of Manchester, however, are made liable, under the act of the 7th and 8th of Victoria cap 81, to the charges of maintaining this establishment, and the public are thereby exonerated from the expense. - Observer

That's what I'd seen - I'd forgotten about that. Knott Mill - Deansgate railway station - the same area I would presume, especially as the canal runs right past there. Finding the location, and more details, are key. With the name I may have more success, so will have a good look around. I'm wondering if it was the Interarms building, or perhaps it was much smaller than that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

snippet here, here. The trouble is separating the Duke's warehouse from references to the 'Old Warehouse'. There are plenty of 'Knott' buildings in the area. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

river locks

The river lock allowed vessels to enter and leave the canal on any tide. The line of locks was described as "the wonder of their time".[31] The connection to the Mersey was made on 1 January 1773.[32] - could this be checked? The Corbett Book, unless I mis-typed while reading it, says 10 January. Also, the infobox should be updated to reflect the locks used in Runcorn, and at Hulme Locks. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Starkey definitely says January 1st. He is the major local historian and his info is usually OK. However he does not cite every entry but just puts a bibliography at the end of every chapter, so it is not possible to say whence he gets the date of the 1st (or should we just settle for "January"?). (How reliable is Corbett?) I know Bert Starkey personally, and his high standards, but he is not well at present and I would not like to trouble him. The infobox looks a bit intimidating but I may add a few details (subject to revision by those who know better). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Corbett book seems to be based more on personal observation and was written around the turn of the 20th century. Its an interesting book that doesn't really give a perfect illustration of history, it does however contain lots of interesting anecdotes including the Victoria visit/horses one which I hope I can find other references to as its quite funny :). I only read it today because another editor had inserted interesting material into the MBB article, without page numbers, and for FAC I had to find out what they were. Its entirely possible I made a typo when copying the text, but as its locked in a cabinet in Bolton I don't think I'll bother going back! I'd leave it at 1 January, perhaps some hidden text for any other editors should be placed in the article?

For the locks, its tricky - currently there are is only the Pomona lock (in use) which is here, then there were 10 at Runcorn, and I think just 1 at Hulme lock - and originally there were...no locks! Since the 10 at Runcorn are cut off from the canal, do we include them in the box? I will do a little test, see what you think and modify it as you wish.

I think the article isn't far from GA now. Perhaps submit it for copyediting? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hadfield thinks the locks opened jan 1st (canals north west england volume 1 page 32) citeing annual register 1773 p65.Geni 20:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

this settles it Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Originally there were 10 locks (without them the canal would have ended at Runcorn basin and would have led nowhere!). They may be cut off now, but they were essential to the operation of the canal and IMO must be included. Also IMO the article has a long way to go (but it may get a GA from someone who is ignorant about the reality, so go ahead if you wish). I think the lead needs to be rewritten; there is still stuff out of chronological order (the Times said...(do we need to include that?)); there is more to be said about the time under the Bridgewater Trustees (the first superintendent is not dead yet!); and there is very little yet about the operation of the canal post 1872. Parts of it need a re-write. But let me not deter you.... Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

PS would it be worthwhile collapsing parts of the map, like the Leeds and Liverpool Canal have done, to make it less unwieldy? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have tried, but I'm rubbish at maps - it took me an age just to do one that doesn't collapse. Believe it or not I had been trying again when I closed the browser in frustration and read this! The Leeds Liverpool provides an example, as does the Peak Forest. When I tried to do it the 'line' became staggered, so I don't know what I was doing wrong. I'd ask on the waterways wikiproject but its pretty quiet over there. I think the Times line should be there but its obviously now in the wrong place as the article has expanded significantly. My general rule for leads is that it summarises each section of the article so that does need expanding also. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's coming along nicely. With a bit more tidying, it might be worthwhile going for GA. We can always add stuff later, when time allows or as new info comes to light. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridgewater Trustees

I've been adding material to this section, and trying to include just the essential stuff, but it's getting a bit long. I must say I find the material fascinating, and probably essential to understanding what was happening with respect to the prosperity of the undertaking at this tine (especially in the early 1830s). Is it getting too long? If we are looking towards FA in time (a distinct possibility IMO) perhaps we ought to include material as detailed as this. Or it could be précised with a link to a main article on the Bridgewater Trustees, although I do not think this would be the optimum plan. What do others think? The next bit will probably be about competition with the Old Quay people at both the Runcorn and the Manchester ends of the canal. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that section could only be accused of being too long when compared to the other sections as they stand now. Its certainly interesting reading. I would consider creating a new 'Bridgewater Canal Trustees' article, inserting all of the trustees information into that article, and then summarising that in the 'Bridgewater Canal' article, with a {{main|Bridgewater Canal Trustees}} to the trustees article? That way you could freely add images of the people concerned, without being worried about the number of images in the canal article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought of that; but the Trustees managed other things - mines, farms, lime-burning, etc. and I'm not really interested in that side. Perhaps for the time being, I'll add more stuff about the canal, then the lead editor for FA (!) can use the material as s/he thinks fit. Is that OK? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Deansgate Canal?

is this report about the Rochdale, or the Bridgewater I wonder? Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hulme Locks Branch

I've found repeated references to Hulme Hall, on the banks of the Irwell, this property and lands being owned by the Bridgewater Trustees. I'm quite sure that the Hulme Hall Locks (now disused) were built on this land. Is there anything in the trustees research to demonstrate this? Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Hulme Hall" does not appear in the index of Mather; sorry. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This map shows 'hulme hall' but I cannot see the building. I wonder perhaps if we should just insert a line stating that Hulme Locks were built on the land around Hulme Hall, and narrow it down at some point if more information is found. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Does this help?

Hulme Hall stood on a rise of red sandstone rock overlooking the River Irwell just below where it is joined by the Medlock, and about half a mile above Ordsall. It is described by Aikin in 1795 as 'an old half-timbered house,' and from the evidence of sketches and drawings made while the building was still standing seems to have been a good specimen of the domestic timber architecture of the county. (fn. 26) It was of two stories and built round a quadrangle, but no plan has been preserved showing the disposition and arrangements of its various parts. The river front facing north-west appears to have been the most picturesque side of the house, presenting an irregular line of building, one of its three gables containing 'an oriel window with a projecting story above.' (fn. 27) The approach was by an avenue of fine elm trees, and the entrance seems to have been by an archway under a tower on the south-east side of the quadrangle, on one side of which the building was only onestoried. The timber work to the quadrangle is said to have been more ornate than that in the front of the building, but some parts of the house appear to have been of brick covered with plaster. It is not easy to reconcile the various views of the hall taken by different people at different times, or any of them with the block plan of the hall as shown in Green's map of Manchester (1794). In the 18th century the gardens of Hulme Hall 'were celebrated for their beauty, and decorated with various works of art and antiquity, among which were several Roman altars and other remains of the former domination of that warlike race, which had been discovered from time to time in the immediate neighbourhood.' (fn. 28) The portion of the hall facing the gardens, consisting of two or three gables of two stories with the porch on the extreme right, is described early in the 19th century as containing 'a staircase of large dimensions and massy appearance. It is composed of ancient oak, which age had turned to a dark brown or black colour. The upper rooms are panelled and have large fireplaces with chimneypieces and twisted pillars in a grotesque style. The interior is more perfect, and the exterior more decayed, than the other parts of the hall.' (fn. 29) The hall was 'fast falling into decay' in 1807 (Britton), and was then let out in tenements to poor families. In one of the rooms was a series of 16th-century oak panels sculptured with carved heads and figures, but these were removed to Worsley Old Hall about 1833 (or before), and are now in the new hall there. (fn. 30) Hulme Hall was pulled down about 1840 to give place to buildings and works in connexion with the Bridgewater Canal, and murky smoke begrimed workshops and mills now cover the site. It is said that in front of the hall, at the river side, was a red sandstone rock called Fisherman's Rock, in the face of which was a cave known as Robbers' Cave. (fn. 31)

From: 'Townships: Hulme ', A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 4 (1911), pp. 335-338. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=41437&strquery=Hulme hall. Date accessed: 09 October 2008. Richerman (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd seen that page and read it, but what I was really looking for was "Knock that old hall down and build a canal through it" or similar :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

map

I found an interesting map that predates the Leigh extension. I'm of the opinion that there are no copyright issues, would it be worth including? It came from this page Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting! The details of the map are very approximate but they do show the first positive idea (in history) to bridge the Mersey at Runcorn Gap; this was Brindley's plan to build an aqueduct across the river (how's that for courage!) and extend the Bridgewater Canal into Liverpool. It's a bit difficult to date the sketch as it does not represent Brindley's first idea, which was to enter the Mersey at Hempstones. At this stage there was no plan to link with the Trent and Mersey at Preston Brook, which is shown on the map. But the actual entry was built to the west of Runcorn Gap; to the west of the position suggested on the map. I guess this is an intermediate idea between the Hempstones terminus and the actual terminus as built. As a historical document showing a phase in the development of ideas, it's great. But I think to include it, with an explanation, would make the article as a whole too long and too complicated to be useful; I don't think there's enough room for ALL the possible ideas for its route etc. What do others think? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I think it also shows the Stockport branch that was being 'considered', although that may be a road. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I only looked at the Runcorn end and did not scroll along to Manchester. I think it's too big to show well on a Wikipedia page. But nevertheless a wonderful find. (I think a copy of it may finish up in the archives of Runcorn Historical Society.) Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well there are plenty more on that page. Let me know if you think one looks ok, and I'll tidy it up and insert it. I can't see any copyright issues, they're all 70+ years dead. I'm looking for one to explain Hulme Locks into the M&I but haven't found one yet. Interestingly theres also a map on that site that shows the Old Quay, I believe at the end of Quay St in Manchester. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Towards FA

Congrats on getting GA for the article. Sorry I've stalled a bit on it recently; I've being doing quite a lot on other Cheshire articles, although I'm only half-way through the Mather book, so there's more about the Bridgewater Trustees to come. Not sure what to do about that at present - and I doubt if I shall get any more done this year. Round here (Runcorn) the debate about the "first canal" is usually Sankey v Bridgewater and we don't look as far as the West Country!! In the meantime, do you want to split the Bridgewater Trustees into a separate article on which I can build later, and write a precis for this article? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think its becoming too large for its own section, so could use a separate article. How about I insert a 'to-do' template in this talk page, and we can add things as we go? I think the canal deserves a section on the impact of its construction for starters. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Young

I've been working on Worsley and came across this book - searching isn't very useful since the text is so old, but 'mine' comes up quite often, and there are some interesting observations on the area in general, with pictures. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Moss Canal

The 1848 lancs & furness map of Worsley clearly shows a 'Moss Canal' branching south from the main canal, to the west of Worsley, and down the side of Botany Bay Wood. It's clearly visible on Google Maps although obviously completely dry. This is the first I've seen of this, does anyone have any more information? Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A Google search for "Moss Canal" (use the quotation marks) reveals that it was primarily to transport spoil onto the Moss. I haven't found anything from a reliable source but there is a postcard iamge of the swing bridge out there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)