Talk:History of the British canal system

Merging

There is another article on Britain's canal network which lists all Britain's canals, and details abandoned and proposed routes. It has a brief history at the top, my question is, is it better to add a note to that short history (something like for a more detailed history go here), or to incorporate this page into the other page? Grunners 12:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree: these two articles need merging. Both give valuable info. But which one merges into which? Andy F, Nov 22 2004

I'm not so sure, I think the history works quite well as a seperate article. Grunners 14:09, 22 Nov 2004 (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)

Now started; see banner, above. Andy Mabbett 10:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

BW involvement in restoration

The current page says "In the past few decades, many hundreds of miles of abandoned canal have been restored, as British Waterways has come to see the economic and social potential of canalside development."

My feeling is that BW are being given too much credit here. Any comments? How could this be better phrased to acknowledge the vision and work of canal societies and WRG? Derek Andrews 13:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Whilst it may gve too much credit, it should be acknowledged that BW used to actively oppose restoration, and that moving to neutrality, and some degree of support has helped Mayalld 14:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the real problem that needs to be addressed is, not whether BW has too much or too little credit, it is that the various authors who have contributed to this article have not included all the relevant information that is needed in this section to assess BW's contribution. For instance, there is no mention of the three classes of waterway, particularly Remainder waterways. This needs to be added to the article to provide the whole picture. With a proper understanding of Remainder waterways it becomes much clearer why groups of volunteers and the WRG, to mention only two bodies, were needed to kickstart regeneration. (I think that BW has too much credit, but that is a POV). Pyrotec 21:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Go to it!Derek Andrews 20:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of Restoration Section

Apart from the question of how much credit is given to BW, the next paragraph asserts a POV as to the effects of restoration/regeneration on industrial archaeology

Mayalld 14:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue of the conservation of industrial archaeology has always been an issue with regards to restoration and maintenance, and is wider than the the few big sites cited. For instance, the replacement of rack and pinion paddle gear with hydro-elastic gear, the choice of materials used in restoration, construction of modern road bridges etc.

Restoration is also sometimes in conflict with nature, such as great crested newts and bats, as well as other users such as fishers. Derek Andrews 15:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with the POV in the section, but it isn't WP:NPOV. The section should discuss the impact on industrial archaeology more fully, citing the arguments put forward on all sides as to whether this is, or is not a problem Mayalld 15:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you. I think this is not the the page to go into too much detail on this issue, but could be moved to an expanded Waterway restoration which could use sections on History and Issues? Derek Andrews 16:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"The issue of the conservation of industrial archaeology has always been an issue with regards to restoration and maintenance, and is wider than the the few big sites cited. For instance, the replacement of rack and pinion paddle gear with hydro-elastic gear, the choice of materials used in restoration, construction of modern road bridges etc".

Please provide a verifiable source for this POV. As far as I can see from the talkpage, one sentence appears to be the reason for the {POV} flag; and that is an unreferenced comment on industrial archaeology. Much of this talkpage, is also based on on unreferenced POV's. Pyrotec 21:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That is the nature of talk pages! They are a page to express opinions on the article, and aren't required to be NPOV.Mayalld 21:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that is true, up to a point. However, since a POV flag has been added to the main article, it is not unreasonable to request some verification as to whether the POV has validity. [Sorry I did not intend to put the flag itself on the talkpage].Pyrotec 21:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I understand. Validity of a POV isn't at question, and never is in NPOV cases. There are many valid POV that are not NPOV, and we must always seek to balance our own valid POV with the opposing valid POV on the article page, keeping our own unreferenced POV for the talk pages Mayalld 06:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

From the discussions so far {POV} appears to be the wrong flag, {expand} appears to be more appropriate.Pyrotec 22:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

{{expand}} might also be relevant, but the basic problem with the section is that it presents an opinion on the effects of restoration on industrial architecture as fact. It could instead cite cases where people have said that restortion was unsympathetic (with references). Mayalld 06:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This comment is illuminating, as it was not immediately obvious why the {POV} flag was put there. It appears to be in regard to restoration on industrial architecture. Almost the whole article is unreferenced, and further unreferenced material continues to be added. Possibly, the only was forward is to remove unreferenced POV material.Pyrotec 07:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that whole paragraph should be removed. It is about canalside development, not about the subject of the heading which is restoration.Derek Andrews 14:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you still delete the whole paragraph if it was moved to a new section, say Canalside Development? You could delete if it chose; you could also add {fact|date=September 2007} (but with double brackets); or, you could edit it to read more to you're satisfaction.Pyrotec 17:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer a section that covers all the uses of canals today: boating, walking, fishing etc. Canalside development would fit in here too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Andrews (talk • contribs) 21:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Steel/concrete balance beams and hydraulic lock controls (I think) first appeared in the 1960s, they were plentifully by 1973; but I'm not convinced that there were any protests at the time. Birmingham, for instance, demolished very many Victorian buildings in the 1960s and replaced them with (unloved) concrete buildings. We now regard them as ugly, but some buildings of this type are now getting listed. I suspect that possibly some of today's values are getting projected backwards; and being presented as {facts}.Pyrotec 07:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've attempted a rewrite, which tries to be WP:NPOV, and which expands the section slightly. It isn't referenced yet, but I've added {{fact}} tags to show where I think we need references. I won't de-tag it myself, but if others agree that it is more neutral, can they remove the tag? Mayalld 21:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Would this be a useful citation? http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1404354,00.htmlDerek Andrews 17:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

this is really intersting, although it could be more understable and easy to read without too much grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.165.124 (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Victorian pastoral care?

Is there an article on the boat people? I don't see much reference to them here. What about including something like:

The church of St Thomas the Martyr, Oxford, under the curacy of John Jones, acquired in 1839 an innovative "Boatman's Floating Chapel", a houseboat to serve the families working on the river and the canals. This boat was St Thomas' first chapel of ease; it was donated by H. Ward, a local coal merchant, and used until it sank in 1868. It was replaced by a chapel dedicated to St Nicholas, which remained in use until 1892. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, but as "hibbert" is not currently used in the article as a reference you will need to add it in full.Pyrotec (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. The formatting of references is not my strong point. I was reading St Thomas the Martyr, Oxford, found this intriguing mention of a floating chapel, and wondered where else Wikipedia wrote about this sort of interaction between the often marginalised boat people and the do-gooders ashore. Is there a separate article on canalboat people? BrainyBabe (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find one listed within the scope of WikiProject UK Waterways. We seem to have concentrated on the "hardware" and not the "software", other than engineers. If you are happy to add the text to the article I will clean up the reference (if necessary). All the reference really needs is: ref name="hibbert">Hibbert, Fred (2009). Book on boat people. Oxford:Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-1234-4567-0. but I've made some of this.

Some of your previous comment is unreadable except in edit mode; I did not wish to tamper with it, but had to remove a few characters or my own contribution becomes invisible! I suggest you re-format. Thank you for offering to clean up the reference. I will insert the material in the next few minutes. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Early history

This section mentions canals in Roman times, and refers the reader to the Roman Britain article. But that article doesn't even mention canals or dykes. The Romans definitely used canals for transport as well as irrigation, albeit on a small scale.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You are right. I have made a minor amendment. The problem is that direct evidence on this is relatively elusive. If you can find some please add it! Peterkingiron (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Lee Navigation

The article makes no specific mention of the Lee Navigation, though it does mention various other navigations or canalised rivers. Given its early development (for example the first pound lock in England in 1577) and huge industrial importance of the Lea Valley from the 18th to the 20th centuries this seems a little odd. Pterre (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

An article of this kind cannot cover everything. I expect that they are all in list articles. The Lee was probably a medieval (and earlier) navigation. but I am reluctant to alter the section on that, as I cannot be sure that the source cited mentions it. I have reverted the additoon of the Grand Western Canal because I do not think we should waste space on failures. It was one of several efforts to create links to the south coast. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I note that the sub-section still refers to both the Bude and St Columb canals, both rather minor and isolated, and the latter no longer extant. Since the article has regional subsections it seems reasonable that the main canals in each region are mentioned. While never completed to Exeter (too late), a substantial part of the route of the GW was built, as far as Tiverton in the Exe Valley, and sections remain in water. As mentioned, it was planned to link the Bristol Channel to the English Channel, linking the cities of South Wales and Bristol to Taunton and Exeter and by-passing the dangerous coastal route around Cornwall. While it may have been one of a number of efforts to link the south coast, I don't know of other Bristol Channel links in the south west that came so close to fruition. Pterre (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Grand contour scheme

A mention, or at least a 'see also' for the Grand Contour Canal would seem to round off the story.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This was an abortive scheme, proposed in a period when canals were all but defunct. There were far too many canals for them all to be mentioned in the article, let alone abortive schemes. I expect thast there is a list article, to which it might be added. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Critique of the Article

This article is written in plain language and is easily comprehensible to the average reader. It puts the topic neatly in its historical context and lays out the structure in a methodical fashion. The overview covers the main points to be addressed in the article, and provides appropriate links to other relevant wiki-pages; this is useful because it does not unnecessarily lengthen or complicate the article at hand. This again allows for easy reading: not a tremendous amount of scrolling through only tangentially related information is required.

The references for this article leave something to be desired, and this article has been flagged by Wikipedia as needing additional sources for verification. The bibliography for this article is fairly extensive, and indicates that many useful topic-specific books were used in the writing of the article. However, the footnote references are not particularly useful, as they refer to many of the same esoteric books, which would probably be difficult to procure for the average scholar who wishes to verify the source materials cited. For example, not all the books cited have even the ISBN provided, or a page cited, which makes sifting through these sources cumbersome.

The illustrations for this article are relevant and contemporary, but number under 5. There are no real illustrations per se, but rather illustrative photographs. This is a shame, as the topic of canal technology and development lends itself to illustrations.

The topics covered by the article seem to be fairly extensive without getting off-topic at all. As mentioned previously, the article does put British canal development squarely in various different historical contexts. The inclusion of several facts which reference a 1978 Reader's Digest article are the only parts of this article that I would deem frivolous. The main criticism to be made here is that perhaps the scope of the article is slightly too narrow. There is little discussion, for example, of the relationship between the transportation of goods through the canals, and the boom in goods being produced in the Industrial Revolution. What this example is intended to show is that the narrow scope of the article allows only for a basic contextualization of the British canal system, and does not incorporate other important historical factors.

This is also evidenced by the lack of illustrations. Locks are a key part of canal operation, and would do well to be be mentioned in the article. Furthermore, the lock system would be an excellent topic to use illustrations of in order to demonstrate the technology to the reader. This could of course be incorporated without a generally discussion of the lock technology, but rather highlighting any developments during the time period and geographic area being discussed. Additionally, geography is an important aspect of this article; it would be very helpful and user-friendly to include some kind of geographic illustration to show the development of the canal system over time.

I believe that the treatment of the material here is quite similar to a regular encyclopedia, with a few caveats. While the scope is fairly narrow, with major related topics being covered in a separate section, as in an encyclopedia, the scope is actually more narrow than that of a regular encyclopedia. However, upon closer consideration, this is a topic that is unlikely to even be covered in its own section in an encyclopedia, but would more likely be included in a larger article on canals, or the industrial revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-13Petesg (talk • contribs) 16:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Resurgence/period of improvement

I recall reading once that there was a period of resurgence on the canals during the 1920/30's, which isn't mentioned in the article. The advent of diesel engines meant that canal boats became more powerful, allowing them to travel faster and pull a full-size butty. Some very powerful short 'tug boats' could even pull up to half a dozen butty boats. Suddenly the canals became potentially viable again and the government began a programme of widening locks and improving the system.

This is briefly referred to in the article, but only in the context allowing bigger boats onto the canals. I think this may be an oversimplification. My understanding has always been that a prime reason for widening locks was actually to allow a narrow boat, and its butty boat, in the lock at the same time.

For a number of reasons, the resurgence was short-lived and the programme of improvements abandoned - but surely this period warrants its own section? Is there someone knowledgeable on these matters who could write a referenced section about it?Obscurasky (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

First UK canals?

From when do "canals" date in the UK? Roman is claimed, as are medieval. The trouble with these is that they're drainage, possibly irrigation, or improvements to uncanalised navigable rivers. Now I'd agree that these belong in these article as background to canals constructed for transportation, but should the (unsourced) literal term "canal" be applied to them, as at present? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat confusingly, the article also states "The claim for the first pure canal in Great Britain is debated between "Sankey" and "Bridgewater" supporters. The first true canal in the United Kingdom was the Newry Canal in Northern Ireland constructed by Thomas Steers in 1741." The terms 'pure canal' and 'true canal' don't sound terribly encyclopaedic to me, but in any case, a few Roman canals were used for navigation - so shouldn't these be considered the first 'true' or 'pure' canals?Obscurasky (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the British canal system. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930083440/http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=Act+%28UK+Public+General%29&title=transport&Year=1968&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=2462774&ActiveTextDocId=2462930&filesize=97370 to http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=Act+%28UK+Public+General%29&title=transport&Year=1968&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=2462774&ActiveTextDocId=2462930&filesize=97370

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Tautology to be corrected

It's redundant to decribe a majority as a major majority in this context. "major majority of canals" should be changed to "majority of canals" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C405:700:4C79:3BD8:3443:6285 (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)