Help needed with television programme - canal projects
martin clark
I have had an enquiry from a television company that is interested in
doing a programme about canals as part of a leisure series.
They are interested in the Huddersfield Narrow Canal restoration but are
also interested in making contact with private enthusiasts or clubs to
find out more about particular pet restoration projects such as boats,
locks, canal paraphernalia etc.
If you are involved in a project you think they might be interested in,
or could suggest one that you know about, please email details to me
mailto:mar...@penninewaterways.co.uk and I will pass the information
on.
Thanks,
--
Martin Clark
Pennine Waterways Website http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk
Latest on Huddersfield Canal http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk/latest
mailto:mar...@penninewaterways.co.uk
Mikey
martin clark <mar...@auluk.nospamplease.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Ip4fSEAk...@auluk.freeserve.co.uk...
> Hello all,
>
> I have had an enquiry from a television company that is interested in
> doing a programme about canals as part of a leisure series.
>
> They are interested in the Huddersfield Narrow Canal restoration but are
> also interested in making contact with private enthusiasts or clubs to
> find out more about particular pet restoration projects such as boats,
> locks, canal paraphernalia etc.
>
> If you are involved in a project you think they might be interested in,
> or could suggest one that you know about, please email details to me
> mailto:mar...@penninewaterways.co.uk and I will pass the information
> on.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Martin Clark
Any chance this could turn out to be a serious programme without reference
to "barges" and presenters madly pretending that locks are difficult and
that a degree in rocket science is needed to operate them?
mikey
Neil Arlidge
news:Ip4fSEAk...@auluk.freeserve.co.uk...
> also interested in making contact with private enthusiasts or clubs to
> find out more about particular pet restoration projects such as boats,
> locks, canal paraphernalia etc.
Are they intersted in people destroying canal related things as well?
With all our exploits and some inept crew (and pilots!) we are making a
pretty good job of destroying Earnest Soon it will make a nice restoration
project for someone.
Neil Arlidge nb Earnest, ex nb Beatty
Follow the travels of Beatty and Earnest at
http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk
See Earnest being built at http://www.nbearnest.co.uk
Adrian Stott
<mi...@pnck.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>martin clark <mar...@auluk.nospamplease.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:Ip4fSEAk...@auluk.freeserve.co.uk...
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I have had an enquiry from a television company that is interested in
>> doing a programme about canals as part of a leisure series.
>>
>
>Any chance this could turn out to be a serious programme without reference
>to "barges"
Unless, of course, it had some barges in it. Ah, sorry, I
forgot again (deja vue warning), UK waterways are only about
gaily painted roses and castles on narrow canals.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
adr...@enable.telinco.com
Jeff Dennison
Stott) wrote:
>Unless, of course, it had some barges in it. Ah, sorry, I
>forgot again (deja vue warning), UK waterways are only about
>gaily painted roses and castles on narrow canals.
>
Rubbish uk.rec waterways. Is about appropriate craft navigating
waterways that they were designed for. I am not aware of Dutch barges
being a part of our waterway heritage. Perhaps they should be sent
back to the European waterways they came from. Had our system been
designed for such vessels I'm sure they would have been built.
I don't dispute the use of sailing barges and lighters on the London
rivers, the Humber keels, Severn Trows, the wide boats of the Northern
waterways, not forgetting the Tom Pudding trains of coal pans. But
Dutch Barges Nah!!!! :-)
Regards
Jeff
Folkwise - Songs of the Waterways
details at http://www.folkwise.co.uk
David Long
<mar...@wanadoo.nl> writes
>On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:31:28 +0100, Jeff Dennison
><je...@folkwise.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Dutch Barges Nah!!!! :-)
>
>Oy! don't you send all that old rusting crap back here :-)
It's less rusty than our home-grown stuff.
--
David Long
Sankey Canal Restoration Society
http://www.scars.org.uk/
Updated March 2000 - New Editions of Newsletter - and Bulletin Board
Jeff Dennison
wrote:
snip
>
>>Dutch Barges Nah!!!! :-)
>
>Oy! don't you send all that old rusting crap back here :-)
Ah I get it now a European plot, we get the crappy French apples and
rusting Dutch barges. The maladie Anglais adopted by the French and
their government capitulates when a few lorry drivers throw a
wobbly. :-)
In the UK a load of selfish truck drivers along with the multi
national oil companies, highly subsidised farmers, and taxi drivers
jumping on the band waggon, the Thatcher generation with their I want
everything on the cheap attitude. Sod the planet, the ozone layer,
global warming a decent health service, schools etc. Let's all have
a couple of coppers off a gallon of petrol so we don't have to walk to
the chippy, or the newsagents.
Now look what you've done Martin. :-)
Steve King
<je...@folkwise.co.uk> wrote:
>>Unless, of course, it had some barges in it. Ah, sorry, I
>>forgot again (deja vue warning), UK waterways are only about
>>gaily painted roses and castles on narrow canals.
>>
>Rubbish uk.rec waterways. Is about appropriate craft navigating
>waterways that they were designed for.
Like welded steel narrowboats with full-length cabins, incorporating
foreign diesel engines, bow thrusters, pump-out toilets and all mod
cons inside? So which canal would that be then? The GU-GO link
perhaps?
Bob Bush's article in the current WW notes the damage done by early
motor boats (1920s and 30s) to the Oxford Canal's unpiled banks during
just a couple of decades. This was perhaps the inevitable price of
progress, from which we all now benefit (in a broader sense) when we
use the technolological advances that we now take for granted. And had
our forebears not done so there would probably not have been a canal
system for us to enjoy today, as it would have been (hopelessly)
outclassed by the railways and roads. The GUCCCo boats that represent
the past to us now were state of the art in the '30s, and certainly
not the boats that the Grand Junction Canal was built for, but
fortunately they were built and kept the trade alive until more
prosperous times when the canal could be maintained just for leisure
use. After WWII a motley collection of landing craft, ships lifeboats
and small launches kept the channel of many a threatened waterway open
for the benefit of us all today - but boatmen doubtless looked on with
disdain.
>I am not aware of Dutch barges
>being a part of our waterway heritage.
But FMC used Swedish Bolinder diesels from about 1910. And they built
a wide-beam motor boat 'Pioneer'..
> Perhaps they should be sent
>back to the European waterways they came from.
And all L&L short boats be sent back there from the London area and
other outposts to which they have ventured? And come to that,
shouldn't narrow boats be barred from the L&L?
> Had our system been
>designed for such vessels I'm sure they would have been built.
Wide beam motor boats were tried, but at the time (1930s) they were
not a commercial success.
> I don't dispute the use of sailing barges and lighters on the London
>rivers, the Humber keels, Severn Trows, the wide boats of the Northern
>waterways, not forgetting the Tom Pudding trains of coal pans. But
>Dutch Barges Nah!!!! :-)
A little personal preference creeping in here then. Obviously any
large boat needs to be navigated with care and moored with
consideration, but the Dutch barges on the canal in London are no
bigger than the canal-sized lighters for which the canal was designed,
and which are still to be seen as houseboats. They add interest to the
navigation and make good homes and cruising boats. And besides, who
would we appoint to determine what constitutes an appropriate craft? I
suppose it could be part of the BSS? (;->)
It's great to see authentic boats on appropriate waterways, but
whereas the fabric of a canal might be restored and held in a time-
warp, there are simply not enough historic boats to go around. Not to
mention that not everyone wants one. We don't go to a historic boat
rally by horse-drawn gig, and there's (fortunately) no compulsion to
go boating on a historic craft.
But the answer is surely that while the infrastructure stays put, a
boat that one doesn't find to one's liking eventually moves on ...
Steve
Niall
<je...@folkwise.co.uk> wrote:
>In the UK a load of selfish truck drivers along with the multi
>national oil companies, highly subsidised farmers, and taxi drivers
>jumping on the band waggon, the Thatcher generation with their I want
>everything on the cheap attitude. Sod the planet, the ozone layer,
>global warming a decent health service, schools etc. Let's all have
>a couple of coppers off a gallon of petrol so we don't have to walk to
>the chippy, or the newsagents.
>
Depends whether you accept the dubious environmental arguments (and if
you do you surely must stop participating in diesel powered pleasure
boating *now*?), and the government's claims that it is neccesary to
tax road fuel (which makes *everything* more expensive and prices the
poorer members of society onto subsidised public transport, kids
pushchairs and all) to fund these wonderful things that they do.
--
Niall
Jeff Dennison
King) wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:31:28 +0100, Jeff Dennison
><je...@folkwise.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Unless, of course, it had some barges in it. Ah, sorry, I
>>>forgot again (deja vue warning), UK waterways are only about
>>>gaily painted roses and castles on narrow canals.
>>>
>>Rubbish uk.rec waterways. Is about appropriate craft navigating
>>waterways that they were designed for.
>Like welded steel narrowboats with full-length cabins, incorporating
>foreign diesel engines, bow thrusters, pump-out toilets and all mod
>cons inside? So which canal would that be then? The GU-GO link
>perhaps?
But still intrinsically the same design.
big snip
> After WWII a motley collection of landing craft, ships lifeboats
>and small launches kept the channel of many a threatened waterway open
>for the benefit of us all today - but boatmen doubtless looked on with
>disdain.
I know I was there in the 1960's when you couldn't get a narroboat for
love nor money, We started with a 16 foot Dolphin and a Johnson
outboard motor.
>>I am not aware of Dutch barges
>>being a part of our waterway heritage.
>But FMC used Swedish Bolinder diesels from about 1910. And they built
>a wide-beam motor boat 'Pioneer'..
But it was not effective in use.
>
>> Perhaps they should be sent
>>back to the European waterways they came from.
>And all L&L short boats be sent back there from the London area and
>other outposts to which they have ventured? And come to that,
>shouldn't narrow boats be barred from the L&L?
Full length ones are.
>
>> Had our system been
>>designed for such vessels I'm sure they would have been built.
>Wide beam motor boats were tried, but at the time (1930s) they were
>not a commercial success.
>
>> I don't dispute the use of sailing barges and lighters on the London
>>rivers, the Humber keels, Severn Trows, the wide boats of the Northern
>>waterways, not forgetting the Tom Pudding trains of coal pans. But
>>Dutch Barges Nah!!!! :-)
>A little personal preference creeping in here then. Obviously any
>large boat needs to be navigated with care and moored with
>consideration, but the Dutch barges on the canal in London are no
>bigger than the canal-sized lighters for which the canal was designed,
>and which are still to be seen as houseboats.
Fine if left in the London area. There is a campaign mounted by the
Dutch Barge Association for a number of canals to be widened . Which
I personally do not agree with,
> They add interest to thenavigation and make good homes and cruising boats.
>And besides, who would we appoint to determine what constitutes an appropriate craft? I
>suppose it could be part of the BSS? (;->)
No not THEM !!!! You can't be serious!!! :-)
>It's great to see authentic boats on appropriate waterways, but
>whereas the fabric of a canal might be restored and held in a time-
>warp, there are simply not enough historic boats to go around. Not to
>mention that not everyone wants one. We don't go to a historic boat
>rally by horse-drawn gig, and there's (fortunately) no compulsion to
>go boating on a historic craft.
You make my point for me in no way did I imply historic craft hence my
use of the word appropriate. Dutch Barges are not appropriate on many
waterways due to their size. Whilst some experimentation went on with
wide boats on the Junction and other canals they were deemed to be a
failure,
>
>But the answer is surely that while the infrastructure stays put, a
>boat that one doesn't find to one's liking eventually moves on ...
If you don't like a boat which belongs to you then it seems
reasonable for it to be sold to someone who might. The logic of this
is lost on me apropos this discussion.
P & Q Brown
>forgot again (deja vue warning), UK waterways are only about
>gaily painted roses and castles on narrow canals.
>
I passed a pub (I'm not certain, but I think it was at Ynysmeudwy) and
on the pub sign was a 'traditional' narrowboat with a nicely painted
cabin - except that boats on that canal never had cabins.
--
Peter Brown
Adrian Stott
<je...@folkwise.co.uk> wrote:
>>>uk.rec waterways. Is about appropriate craft navigating
>>>waterways that they were designed for.
The waterways were generally "designed for" craft up to a
specified maximum size (length, width, depth, air draft).
Such designs as the josher, short boat, humber keel, etc.
evolved *after* the waterways were built. Boats have
generally been designed for any waterway they will fit in.
>>>I am not aware of Dutch barges
>>>being a part of our waterway heritage.
I am not aware of cruisers being part of our waterway
heritage. So what?
>>But FMC used Swedish Bolinder diesels from about 1910. And they built
>>a wide-beam motor boat 'Pioneer'..
>
>But it was not effective in use.
True, but only on the Grand Union north of Braunston, where
enlargement of the channel was never completed during the
1930s project. They were fine on the Braunston-London bit.
>>> Had our system been
>>>designed for such vessels I'm sure they would have been built.
Barges (i.e. broad beam craft) were used on the Grand
Junction from the time it was built.
>>A little personal preference creeping in here then. Obviously any
>>large boat needs to be navigated with care and moored with
>>consideration, but the Dutch barges on the canal in London are no
>>bigger than the canal-sized lighters for which the canal was designed,
>>and which are still to be seen as houseboats.
>
>Fine if left in the London area.
And the reason for that is, perhaps, that Jeff seldom goes
to London?
>There is a campaign mounted by the
>Dutch Barge Association for a number of canals to be widened . Which
>I personally do not agree with,
Sorry, Jeff, but a small error in fact there. The DBA is
campaigning for certain broad links to be built (bypass for
Watford locks, Avon from Stratford to GU at Warwick, GU
Bedford arm, bypass for Northampton Arm, Little Ouse -
Waveney. It also supports broad beam restorations
(Thames-Seven, upper Severn, Grantham, Droitwich, etc.).
However, it is *not* proposing to widen *any* narrow
waterways.
>
>Dutch Barges are not appropriate on many
>waterways due to their size.
Any boat too big to travel along a waterway is inappropriate
for that waterway. In particular, take a look at all the
stationary multi-storey "business boats" now appearing.
But on the other hand, (almost) any boat that fits a
waterway is appropriate.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
adr...@enable.telinco.com
Martin Ludgate
<adr...@enable.telinco.com> writes
>
>Barges (i.e. broad beam craft) were used on the Grand
>Junction from the time it was built.
>
25th July 1805, exactly four months after the canal was completed.
Subsequently they were extensively used on the southern end of
the canal, but I am not aware of any successful major use of
broad-beam working boats on the northern part. Does anyone
else know of any such traffic?
--
Martin Ludgate
Adrian Stott
<edi...@navvies.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <39c64420...@news.igclick.net>, Adrian Stott
><adr...@enable.telinco.com> writes
>>
>>Barges (i.e. broad beam craft) were used on the Grand
>>Junction from the time it was built.
>>
>...until they were banned from Blisworth and Braunston tunnels on
>25th July 1805, exactly four months after the canal was completed.
I had thought it was later. I'm sure I have come across
reports of later (horse-drawn) barges going through to
Braunston, but I can't quote the source from memory and I'm
too lazy to try to find them.
It came about because the Grand Junction Company failed to
persuade the builders of the routes connecting to it further
north to build them to broad gauge. If that had occurred,
no doubt the GJC would have continued to allow broad craft
to use the tunnels, and set up the type of traffic
management system now used at Foulridge tunnel (Leeds &
Liverpool).
Adrian
Adrian Stott
adr...@enable.telinco.com
Martin Ludgate
<adr...@enable.telinco.com> writes
>On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:40:20 +0100, Martin Ludgate
><edi...@navvies.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <39c64420...@news.igclick.net>, Adrian Stott
>><adr...@enable.telinco.com> writes
>>>
>>>Barges (i.e. broad beam craft) were used on the Grand
>>>Junction from the time it was built.
>>>
>>...until they were banned from Blisworth and Braunston tunnels on
>>25th July 1805, exactly four months after the canal was completed.
>
>I had thought it was later.
>I'm sure I have come across
>reports of later (horse-drawn) barges going through to
>Braunston, but I can't quote the source from memory and I'm
>too lazy to try to find them.
>It came about because the Grand Junction Company failed to
>persuade the builders of the routes connecting to it further
>north to build them to broad gauge.
able to pass narrow boats in the tunnels outweighed the
advantage of using boats that could only reach Braunston, given
that the plan to widen Braunston-Hawkesbury-Fradley-Burton had
been abandoned due to shortage of money. In the case of the
Leicester line, the decision to build narrow locks came after the
GJC's ruling banning broad boats from the tunnels.
>If that had occurred,
>no doubt the GJC would have continued to allow broad craft
>to use the tunnels,
Maybe, maybe not.
I'm quite sure that if the proposed widening had been followed by
all or most of the midland narrow canals being similarly widened
to broad beam as appeared possible for a while around 1800,
then they would have been extensively used by more profitable
broad-beam boats. They might then have survived rail
competition in a better state, been able to afford to continue to
modernise their lines rather than having to cut tolls to keep their
trade, been enlarged to Freycinet standard in the 1880s, and by
the mid-to-late 20th century a sizeable proportion would be under
reconstruction to 1300 tonne size with the rest carrying a modest
trade in 300-tonners and a lot of broad-beam pleasure boats and
converted Dutch Barges....
I'm less convinced that if the widening had been limited to the
single proposed broad-beam route London-Braunston-Fradley-
Nottingham, it would have been sufficient to make the greater
capacity of broad-beam boats outweigh the go-anywhere ability of
the narrow boat. So the GJ might well have ended up carrying
most of its trade in narrow boats anyway, as happened after the
Braunston-Birmingham widening, and as happened on several
other broad canals e.g. the Thames & Severn. In which case the
GJC might have banned broad boats from its tunnels anyway, or
required them to use the tunnels outside normal traffic hours.
>and set up the type of traffic
>management system now used at Foulridge tunnel (Leeds &
>Liverpool).
>
Again, maybe they would. But Blisworth is nearly double the
length of Foulridge, so it would have been rather more
inconvenient. Maybe they'd have found some other way of easing
the bottleneck such as building a second tunnel (as per
Harecastle) or opening it out (as per Fenny Compton) or opening
out a passing place in the middle (Strood) or building a bypass on
a different alignment (Dudley) Perhaps we should consider all
these options as ways of facilitating the movement of wide-beam
pleasure boats on the GU? Or perhaps not.
--
Martin Ludgate
David Long
<edi...@navvies.demon.co.uk> writes
>all or most of the midland narrow canals being similarly widened
>to broad beam as appeared possible for a while around 1800,
>then they would have been extensively used by more profitable
>broad-beam boats. They might then have survived rail
>competition in a better state, been able to afford to continue to
>modernise their lines rather than having to cut tolls to keep their
>trade, been enlarged to Freycinet standard in the 1880s, and by
>the mid-to-late 20th century a sizeable proportion would be under
>reconstruction to 1300 tonne size with the rest carrying a modest
>trade in 300-tonners and a lot of broad-beam pleasure boats and
>converted Dutch Barges....
I think you're right. As I've said elsewhere, the Freycinet
modernisation worked pretty well for most of the 20th C., and would
still be doing quite well if the coal mines in N France & Belgium were
still working. The pressure on the rest of the narrow canals to enlarge
would have been irresistible.
>
>I'm less convinced that if the widening had been limited to the
>single proposed broad-beam route London-Braunston-Fradley-
>Nottingham, it would have been sufficient to make the greater
>capacity of broad-beam boats outweigh the go-anywhere ability of
>the narrow boat. So the GJ might well have ended up carrying
>most of its trade in narrow boats anyway, as happened after the
>Braunston-Birmingham widening, and as happened on several
>other broad canals e.g. the Thames & Severn. In which case the
>GJC might have banned broad boats from its tunnels anyway, or
>required them to use the tunnels outside normal traffic hours.
Which narrow boats are these? If we'd done as France did there would
only have been a few around (like the Berrichons).
>>and set up the type of traffic
>>management system now used at Foulridge tunnel (Leeds &
>>Liverpool).
>>
>Again, maybe they would. But Blisworth is nearly double the
>length of Foulridge, so it would have been rather more
>inconvenient.
If you consider that both tunnels are short in comparison with many
French ones, and that the French have restricted lock opening hours, I'm
sure we'd have managed. With modernisation would have come a reduction
in the number of locks (when the Roanne canal was modernised to
Freycinet standard, the locks were reduced from 13 to ten over 56km), so
boats would, as in France, often bunch together naturally to pass
through tunnels.
Molly
Martin Ludgate (Martin Ludgate <edi...@navvies.demon.co.uk>) wrote
>In article <39c64420...@news.igclick.net>, Adrian Stott
><adr...@enable.telinco.com> writes
>>
>>Barges (i.e. broad beam craft) were used on the Grand
>>Junction from the time it was built.
>>
>...until they were banned from Blisworth and Braunston tunnels on
>25th July 1805, exactly four months after the canal was completed.
>
moment, but they do have to wait for permission before entering, to
ensure that they don't meet anything coming the other way.
The fascinating thing to me about Braunston Tunnel is the way that,
although you can see the far end from the entrance, the view of it
disappears entirely in a couple of the S-bend wiggles. This probably
doesn't work if you have a trad stern, but if you have a cruiser stern
and are sitting to the left of the tiller the effect is dramatic.
--
Molly (remove -nospam to email me)
Visit http://www.thehungersite.com for a totally free and simple way
to donate food to the hungry. (Go on, try it!)