PROJECTED CANALS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
“Where of late the kids had cropt the grass,
The monsters of the deep now take their place.”
—_Ovid._
[Illustration: SKETCH OF THE PROPOSED NATIONAL CANAL.]
One of the most notable features of the engineering and commercial
development of to-day is the movement, elsewhere alluded to, for making
ship canals with the view of converting inland towns into seaports. The
Manchester Ship Canal, now well advanced towards completion, undoubtedly
gave the first impulse and has since supplied the impetus to this
movement. Whether the movement will proceed much farther than plans
and prospectuses remains to be seen. But at the present moment the
principal proposals affecting the United Kingdom are—
1. The construction of a National canal, passing right
through from the Bristol Channel to the Humber on the one
side, and from the Thames to the Mersey on the other.
2. The conversion of the existing waterways into a ship
canal, between Sheffield and Goole.
3. The construction of a ship canal between the Forth and
the Clyde.
4. The construction of a canal from the Irish Sea to
Birkenhead through Wallasey Pool and the Wirral Peninsula.
5. The construction of a ship canal between the Mersey and
the city of Birmingham, connecting with the Manchester Ship
Canal and the Mersey, by way of the Weaver Navigation.
6. A canal to connect the city and district of Birmingham,
with the river Trent, and thereby with the North Sea.
7. An improved waterway between the Midlands and the Thames.
8. The improvement of the Wiltshire and Berkshire canal, so
as to give better inland water transport between Bristol and
London.
THE FORTH AND CLYDE CANAL.
The most probable, and at the same time one of the most important of
the foregoing proposals, is that designed to connect the Forth with the
Clyde, thereby enabling vessels of considerable tonnage to pass from
the one sea to the other, without passing round the further extremity
of the island. There is already a canal between the two seas, but this
waterway is too contracted to be of much use for vessels of any size,
and it is not, therefore, proposed to utilise the existing canal in the
new scheme.
The greatest height of the present canal is 141 feet. It is crossed by
about 30 drawbridges, and passes over 10 considerable aqueducts, and 30
small ones, the largest being that over the Kelvin, at Maryhill, near
Glasgow. The canal is supplied with water from eight reservoirs, which
cover 721 acres. The original cost of the canal was about 300,000_l._,
and 50 years after its opening the annual revenue amounted to about
100,000_l._, and the expenditure to about 40,000_l._ In 1869, the canal
passed into the possession of the Caledonian Railway Company, when,
with the adjoining Monkland Canal, it was valued at 1,141,000_l._ The
Caledonian Company undertook to pay an annuity of 91,333_l._, being a
guaranteed dividend of six and a quarter per cent. It was, however,
like many other similar arrangements made by railway companies in Great
Britain, a very bad bargain for the new proprietors, since the profits
from the working of the canal are now much less than they were.
Messrs. Stevenson, of Edinburgh, who have been consulted as to the most
practicable route for the proposed canal, have recommended that the
canal proper should begin at Alloa on the Forth, where vessels would
be raised by a lock to the level of Loch Lomond, 13 feet above high
water, which would be the summit level of the canal. The canal would
proceed thence along the valley of the Forth to Loch Lomond, through
that loch to Tarbet, and would afterwards be carried along the narrow
neck of land to Loch Long, or, alternatively, across to the opposite
shore of Loch Lomond, near Arden, and thence into the Forth of Clyde,
near Helensburgh. The average depth of cutting is stated at 47 feet,
but there would be a heavy cutting, some three miles long and 203 feet
deep on an average, which the engineers propose to make a tunnel,
with 150 feet of headway. The estimated cost of the work is about
8,000,000_l._, or much the same as the cost of the Manchester Ship
Canal. The traffic is calculated at 9,516,000 tons, and it is estimated
that at 1_s._ 6_d._ per ton, this traffic would yield a gross annual
income of 713,748_l._ which would be sufficient to yield 8 per cent.
after deducting working expenses, &c. It is proposed to make the canal
30 feet deep, and 72 feet wide at the bottom.
And the route has been recommended for the proposed ship canal, which
is termed the direct route, and which is 27 miles shorter from Greenock
than the proposed Loch Lomond route _viâ_ Tarbet. This route would
start from the Clyde at a point near to Whiteinch, join the line of the
present Forth and Clyde Canal near Maryhill, and thereafter proceed
in the same direction to the junction of the canal with the Firth
of Forth. The shorter route would, however, be the most difficult,
inasmuch as there is a very steep hill immediately after leaving the
Clyde, between Whiteinch and Maryhill. The height to be surmounted
here is not less than 150 feet; and for a ship canal, which ought to
be a tide-level waterway, in order to be satisfactory, this would be a
serious drawback.
It is contended that, being the shortest route between America and the
Baltic, the Continent, and the east coast of Scotland and England, the
through traffic would be considerable. This may be true, but the gain
in time would be reduced materially by the fact that vessels in coming
off the Atlantic would be required to sail up the long forth (Clyde),
and would probably require, particularly if deeply laden, to wait on
the tide to get to Bowling, which is some distance up the river, or
the channel would need to be deepened and broadened, thus adding to
the cost. For channel steamers going from Ireland, or the west coast
of Scotland, England or Wales to the east coast or the Continent, the
canal would be a decided benefit, for not only would their voyage be
shortened, but the rocky and dangerous coast of the north of Scotland
would be avoided. The canal would pass through the coal and oil
districts of Scotland, a fact which has been adduced in favour of the
scheme.
Another consideration which carries much weight is the facility gained
for the rapid passage of battleships from one shore to another,
rendering defence in time of war more effective.
THE PROPOSED SHEFFIELD AND GOOLE CANAL.
The town of Sheffield, with a population of some 300,000, and extremely
important and diversified industries, has hitherto been practically
landlocked. There is, however, a system of canals actually in existence
which gives communication with the sea. This system embraces the
Sheffield and Tinsley Canal, 4 miles long; the Dun Navigation, 28¼
miles; the Stainforth and Keadby Canal, 12¾ miles; and the Dearne and
Dove Canal, 14 miles, giving a total of 59 miles of navigation.
In this chain of communication the most important link is the Dun River
Navigation, which begins near the village of Tinsley, and proceeds
thence by the Tinsley Cut, which was made to avoid a bend in the river,
under powers of the Act of 12th George I. There are several other cuts
in the river which have been constructed at various times, their total
length, from Mexborough Church to the Dearne river, being not less
than 2220 yards. The river has passed through the hands of Vermueden,
who, in the reign of Charles I., used it to drain the low lands in the
vicinity of Hatfield Chase. The total rise of the Dun Navigation, by
sixteen locks, from low-water mark in the river, is 92¼ feet. Writing
in 1831, Priestley stated that “the Dun Navigation is of the utmost
importance for exporting the produce of the extensive coal and iron
works which abound at its western extremity; also, the vast quantity
of manufactured iron goods and cutlery which is annually produced in
the populous town and neighbourhood of Sheffield.” This, however, was
before the present system of railways was completed, and before the
waterways on this route fell into the hands of their great rivals.
Not more than half a million tons now annually pass through the port
of Keadby, which is the connecting point between the Dun Navigation
and the Stainforth and Keadby Canal, the latter being a continuation
thereof, and the river Trent.
[Illustration: MAP SHOWING THE PRESENT AND THE PROPOSED CONNECTION
BETWEEN SHEFFIELD AND THE SEA.
Sheffield to Goole, _viâ_ Dutch river 40¼ miles.
” ” ” Trent and Ouse 35 ”]
It is not proposed to do more than improve the existing navigations to
the extent of enabling them to take barges with a carrying capacity of
700 tons, and sea-going steamers capable of carrying 300 to 400 tons,
whereas at present they cannot carry boats of more than 80 tons. Such
vessels could carry coal cargoes from the South Yorkshire collieries
situated upon this waterway, and London or any other large consuming
centre on the British shores. The existing waterways are, however,
in the hands of the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway
Company, which, of course, will have to be consulted as to their
acquisition. The accompanying diagram shows the route of the proposed
improved navigation.
THE PROPOSED IRISH SEA AND BIRKENHEAD SHIP CANAL.
A company was established in 1888 for the purpose of cutting a canal,
through the Wallasey Pool, from the Irish Sea to Birkenhead, The
object of this undertaking is to improve the approach to the port
of Liverpool, which is at present greatly prejudiced by the shifty
channel, the numerous sandbanks on either side of the bar, and the
risks and delays that are thereby entailed. The scheme is not a new
one entirely. On the contrary, Telford, Nimmo, and Robert Stephenson,
in 1838, reported upon a kindred project, and estimated its cost at
1,400,000_l._ The sum named, however, was too much for the promoters to
raise, and a modified plan was submitted, calculated to cost about half
the money. The Corporation of Liverpool, however, opposed the scheme,
and privately bought up the land on either side of the Wallasey Pool,
with a view to frustrate its accomplishment. Telford’s plans have,
however, quite recently been revived, and it is now proposed to make a
cut from an arm of the Wallasey Pool—which, running for about half
a mile inland, has, notwithstanding the enormous extension of dock
accommodation all around, been left in its natural condition—to the
west end of the Leasowe embankment, near Dove Point, whence a tidal
channel would be formed through the foreshore to the Rock Channel, the
ancient entrance to the port of Liverpool. This tidal channel would
be protected by a breakwater running from the Leasowe embankment to a
point in the Rock Channel west of the Dove Spit. An outer breakwater
would also run in an easterly and south-easterly direction for a
distance of 5000 feet, sheltering the greater part of the Rock Channel,
which is to be dredged for upwards of a mile to a depth of 30 feet
below low-water mark. The scheme does not appear to be either difficult
or costly, but as it is objected to by the Corporation of Liverpool
and by the Mersey Harbour Board, it may not come to maturity. That it
would, if carried out, be a great convenience to the many thousands who
annually arrive at or depart from Liverpool for the United States and
other countries, is sufficiently manifest.
THE CANAL CONNECTION BETWEEN LONDON AND BRISTOL.
The Wiltshire and Berkshire Canal was acquired by some capitalists
towards the close of 1889, with a view to working it in competition
with the Great Western Railway between London and Bristol. The canal in
question leaves the Kennett and Avon Canal at Semington, a few miles
on the Bristol side of Devizes, and proceeds thence through Melksham,
Wootton Bassett, Swindon, and Challow to the Thames at Abingdon.
Although the Kennett and Avon Canal, which joins the Thames at Reading,
is 23 miles shorter between London and Avonmouth, it labours under
the disadvantage of rising to a much greater height, and therefore
requiring twenty-eight additional locks. It is also proposed to develop
the Thames and Severn Canal, which is connected by a short branch from
Swindon, through Cricklade, with the Wiltshire and Berkshire.
During the year 1888 attention was called to a project for the union
of the Bristol and English Channels by a ship canal, running from
Stolford, near Bridgwater, which has the advantage of being opposite
Cardiff, _viâ_ Bridgwater, Taunton, and Exeter, to Langstone Point, on
the west side of Exmouth Bight, where the southern harbour would be
formed.
This route is described as offering every facility for the work, the
chief elevation, White Ball Hill, which is 536 feet high, being turned
by following the course of the old Great Western Canal. A part of the
existing canals, or their remains, and the floating basin at Exeter,
with its 5½ miles of canal to the Exe, are intended to be acquired, and
the deepest cutting on the whole system will not exceed 200 feet. The
canal would be on the level of the sea, taking its supply chiefly from
that source, with sea-locks only at each end. The dimensions proposed
are: length, 62 miles; width at surface, 125 feet, at bottom, 36 feet;
and depth 21 feet, the figures being much the same as those of the ship
canal from Amsterdam to the Helder, which admits loaded vessels of 1000
to 1500 tons, drawing 18 feet. Coal from South Wales and adjoining
fields would be likely to provide a large revenue for a short cut to
the English Channel, and thence to London, say 355 miles, in order to
better compete with the North of England. The cost of the scheme has
been set down at 3,080,000_l._
PROPOSED WATERWAYS FROM BIRMINGHAM TO THE SEA.
Of all the towns in the United Kingdom that labour under the
disadvantage of being remote from the sea, none are so entirely
excluded from sea competition as the capital of the Midlands.
Birmingham is unlike most of the other cities and towns of the country
in this respect, that it is neither built upon a navigable river, nor
upon any other waterway that would be likely to secure for traders some
relief from their almost abject dependence upon railway transport. And
yet the town and district of Birmingham are not altogether without
the means of water transport. The locality is, in point of fact, the
centre of a network of canals, which, if they were properly adapted
to its requirements, would place it in direct communication by water
with all the principal ports and markets in the kingdom. By the
Birmingham, Warwick and Birmingham, Warwick and Napton, Oxford, Grand
Junction, and Regent’s Canals it is placed in communication with the
metropolis, although the distance is 163½ miles, as against only 100
miles by the shortest railway route. It has two similar routes to the
great port of Liverpool—the first by the Birmingham, Staffordshire
and Worcestershire, North Staffordshire, and Bridgwater Canals, and
the river Mersey; the second route by the same route as regards the
Birmingham Canal, and thence _viâ_ the Staffordshire and Worcestershire
Canal for a mile and a quarter, until the Shropshire Canal is broached,
when the route is continued over this waterway for a distance of 68
miles, until the Mersey is reached. The distance by the first of these
routes is 106½, and by the second only 89¼ miles, against 90 miles
by railway. Hull is in water communication with Birmingham by way of
the Birmingham, the Coventry, and the North Staffordshire Canals,
and thence by the open navigation of the Trent and the Humber for a
distance of 120½ miles. Finally, Birmingham has three separate water
routes to the Severn ports, all of them terminating in the Gloucester
and Berkeley section, after traversing the Severn for 30 to 44
miles—the entire distance being 86 miles in two cases, and 95 miles in
another. The nearest means of getting at the sea available at present
to the people of Birmingham is, therefore, 86 miles. But neither this
nor any of the other routes indicated are of any real value to the
Midlands, owing to the limited size of the canals, and the difficulty
of working them as an unbroken chain of communication. Thus, taking
the water route to London, the three first canals—the Birmingham, the
Warwick and Birmingham, and the Warwick and Napton—have locks only
72 feet long by 7 feet broad and 4 feet draft. On the section of the
Oxford Canal to be passed over, only 5 miles in length, there is no
lock, but on the Grand Junction Canal, which has to be traversed for
a distance of 101 miles, the locks are 14 feet by 6 feet by 4 feet 6
inches, and on the Regent’s Canal, where the transport terminates,
the locks are 90 feet by 15 feet by 5 feet. The same condition of
things applies to the physical characteristics of the waterways
between Birmingham and Liverpool. Hull might be more readily reached
if only the Trent were a little deeper, but as the average draft of
the locks on that waterway does not exceed 3 feet 6 inches, it is
clear that no vessel of large size could navigate it, and to dredge
it to a reasonable depth for the whole distance of 102 miles would
be a most serious undertaking. The most promising means of reaching
the sea are therefore those provided by the Severn route. The river
itself is available for the greater part of the distance on this route
in one case, after traversing 26 miles of canal on the Birmingham,
Stourbridge, and Staffordshire and Worcestershire systems. The average
depths of the locks on the Severn over the 44 miles that it has to be
navigated by this route is about 6 feet, while they are 99 feet long
and 20 feet wide. These dimensions would allow of the passage of really
good-sized boats, but as it is, with the broken gauge of the other
canals, no boat can pass through to the Severn loaded beyond 33 tons.
Another matter that seriously militates against the water facilities of
Birmingham is that the different canals are, of course, under different
administrations, and each authority levies tolls capriciously and
disproportionately to the distance traversed and facilities afforded.
Thus, it was given in evidence before the Canal Committee of 1883[59]
that the Birmingham Canal Company charged in respect of bricks 11¼_d._
per ton for 6¾ or 7 miles, whereas the adjoining Warwick Canal Company
charged 6½_d._ for 37¼ miles, and the Grand Junction Canal Company only
charged 1_s._ 4½_d._ for 101 miles.
At different times during the last two or three years proposals have
been put forward, having for their object to place Birmingham in direct
connection with the sea, either—
1. By a ship canal, that would enable vessels of 200 tons at
least to proceed to the Bristol Channel.
2. By a canal that would enable canal boats to navigate the
lower Trent to the North Sea; and
3. By the construction of an improved canal, between the
Midlands and London.
Each of these routes has been canvassed and considered over the last
few years; and it is probable that some really effectual steps will
be taken before long, in order to realise the long cherished and
most desirable end of giving Birmingham a satisfactory outlet to the
sea. The people of the Midlands have really been more active in this
direction than those of any other locality. But they have apparently
sought too much from the State and trusted too little to themselves.
The Birmingham Town Council, in 1888, appointed a committee, with
instructions either to get clauses introduced into the Railway Rates
Bill, then under consideration, or to introduce a separate measure with
a view to the formation of Canal Trusts, &c. In May of 1889, again, the
Midlands sent a deputation to the Board of Trade, in order to urge upon
that department, the desirability of improving the canal communication,
between the Midlands and the sea. Besides this, the traders and
manufacturers of Birmingham, have met and passed resolutions, calling
upon the Government to inquire into the canal system without delay,
with a view to its acquisition by the State. More real good would be
done if the money were subscribed, to open up a first class waterway
to the sea, as has been done, with so much spirit, by the people of
Lancashire. Whether this waterway should connect with London, with
Bristol, or with the Mersey, or whether it would be worth while to
incur the expenditure required to connect all three, is a matter that
would have to be very carefully considered.
As regards the proposal to provide an improved canal, between London
and Birmingham, it is suggested that it should have a minimum top width
of 45 feet, and a depth of 8 feet. The number of locks proposed is 90
instead of 154, but by adopting a partially new route, so as to avoid
the depression in crossing the valley of the Avon, at Warwick, the
number may be reduced to 75. The time of transit between Birmingham
and London would thereby be shortened by 12 hours, and it is estimated
that the additional facilities afforded for the passage of steam-tugged
trains of boats, would enable the cost of haulage to be reduced nearly
one-half. The carrying capacity of the improved canal has been put at
two millions of tons annually, and the cost of the improvements at
a million and a quarter. A committee of traders in the Midlands has
recently had this project under consideration.
FOOTNOTES:
[59] Report, Q. 251.