Jump to content

Talk:Manchester Ship Canal/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Engineer

There's a contemporary extensive article in the Engineer 25 May 1894 - in particular it contains as well as map/history photographs and engavings of the canal under construction and as newly built. The content is available via http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/The_Engineer_1894/05/25

The work is out of copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.174.82 (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a very good source, thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. Parrot of Doom 12:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manchester Ship Canal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Manchester Ship Canal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Manchester Ship Canal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manchester Ship Canal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

No Criticisms of the Canal project

I see no real objection and criticism to the canal project in the article. The was much of it at the time. Many critics were proven right, although after their deaths, as the canal is now, above the Mersey Estuary, pretty well underused turning out to be a White Elephant. All the canal did was parallel the railway line, which over time would win. 90.195.172.249 (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Are there any specific points you'd like to see covered? The objections from Liverpool merchants is mentioned, as is the disappointing amount of traffic using the upper reaches of the canal. Eric Corbett 16:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you can source it, feel free to add it. All the canal did was parallel the railway line is missing the point; the entire purpose of the MSC was to parallel the railway line in order to break the monopolies held by the LNWR and the Port of Liverpool. The reasons it's underused now are that heavy industry in Manchester is a shadow of its former self so there's less need for bulk goods transport, and that the shift of Britain's primary trade relationships from the Empire/Commonwealth to Europe meant a shift in shipping away from the Mersey estuary and towards Hull, Felixstowe, Tilbury and the Channel ports. Also bear in mind that there were some industries such as naval gun foundries which wouldn't have existed at all had the MSC not been there, so the knock-on effect of those on the local economy needs to be taken into account. ‑ Iridescent 17:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I have read a few books on the canal and there was much varied criticism at the time. The cost? It is worth it? Etc. I can't pin the books down jut now. Some did predict the demise, with one reason being no comprehensive water based transport at the terminal head for ongoing transportation to other regions, which Hamburg and Antwerp have, which are both further from the sea than Manchester, and which are still major ports. Not widening the locks in the 1950s did not help with the eventual closure of Manchester Docks. The article does not go into any real expansion proposals either. 90.195.172.249 (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Hamburg and Antwerp are each the primary ports for their respective countries, are at the mouths of the Scheldt and the Elbe respectively, and were built to serve as transshipment points for connecting railway traffic—they're not comparable in any way to the MSC, which had the sole purpose of allowing goods to and from Manchester to bypass Liverpool without needing to go by railway or narrowboat. The continental equivalent to Manchester Docks would be Duisburg. ‑ Iridescent 17:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
"the shift of Britain's primary trade relationships from the Empire/Commonwealth to Europe meant a shift in shipping away from the Mersey estuary and towards Hull, Felixstowe, Tilbury and the Channel ports. " that is a myth as most of the UKs trade has always been with the rest of the world, rather than Europe. 90.195.172.249 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Er, that's complete bollocks. As of last year 44% of exports were to the EU and 53% of imports were from the EU; add in other non-EU European countries like Norway and Russia and Europe accounts for well over half Britain's trade. Trade with the Empire has—by definition—dwindled to nothing. There are some nice shiny official charts here if you want to visualise just how little trade is now with the Commonwealth compared to Europe. ‑ Iridescent 17:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your bollocks. Total import/export to the EU is less than 50%. Read some newspapers you would think it was 80%. The demise of Manchester Docks was blamed on the EU which the UK joined in 1973. 11 years later the port closed for good. That closure was because of off-shoring of UK manufacturing to the Far East rather than anything else. Manchester could only be sustained by bulk cargo use, with no factories they were not needed. Taking 6,000 TEU ships to Manchester was waste of time as the containers can be taken nearer to the destinations by road/rail from Liverpool. Manufacturing disappeared and no use for bulks. 90.213.248.226 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The latest info on the expansion plans is here and, although a few lines need to be added to the article to update the information, it won't really add all that much to what's already there. Richerman (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
That is a plan to reintroduce a port near the end of the canal. That is not widening the canal to accept larger ships. The vessels that they "hope" will serves the new port will mainly be motorised barges that load containers at Liverpool. They must think there is a need for this new port. Peel also talk of one at Warrington as well. IMHO, I don't think it will be a success if they envisage mainly containers. Containers can reach Liverpool's hinterland easily by road and rail, so why duplicate some of the facilities? We shall see. But you are right it needs adding in and more emphasis on the canal "regeneration".
I recall some proposals to fill in parts of the canal to accommodate the new Northern Powerhouse Rail line from Liverpool to Hull. One suggestion was to part fill the canal to make a barge canal and railway track. So far nothing appears to be happening. 90.213.248.226 (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manchester_Ship_Canal/Archive_3&oldid=923869472"