Category Archives: Foreign parts

A London pub and the history of the Shannon

Posted on Tuesday 23 October 2012 | 2 comments

Piloti’s “Nooks and Corners” column in the latest issue of Private Eye [No 1325] reports [brief extract available to non-subscribers here] that a London pub is threatened with demolition. On the Google satellite view with photos, press the button to the bottom right of the building to see a pic headed “Derelict pub”.

Piloti says that the pub was built in the 1840s [Diamond Geezer says 1839] and at that time the Marquis (or Marquess) was Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, 3rd Marquess of Lansdowne, KG, PC, FRS. The family’s main base was in Britain but they owned large estates in Ireland, notably in Counties Limerick and Kerry; certain roads in Dublin are also named after the family.

The late Marquis has two claims on the attention of Irish waterways enthusiasts. First, the best-known of the early River Shannon steamers, the Lady Lansdowne, was named after his wife. Second, he was Lord President of the Council [the current holder of the post is Nick Clegg] when the government of Her Late Majesty Queen Victoria decided, in 1839, to spend about half a million pounds improving the Shannon Navigation.

 

2 Comments

Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Charles Wye Williams, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Irish inland waterways vessels, Non-waterway, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Shannon, Sources, Steamers, The cattle trade, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Political parties

Posted on Wednesday 17 October 2012 | Leave a comment

Regular readers will know that I sent and FOI request to the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs [now the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht] looking for files on the Clones Sheugh (aka the Ulster Canal). One of the grounds on which I was refused access was that certain files related to “the costing, assessment or consideration or any proposal of a political party carried out for or on behalf of that party”.

While my appeal against that refusal continues on its course, I thought I might as well ask the political parties directly for the information that might be in those files — in the process, of course, establishing which of them had Clones Sheugh proposals in mind.

Party time

As far as I can see, the parties that contested, or were eligible to contest, the 2011 general election were:

Christian Solidarity Party
Fianna Fáil
Fine Gael
Fís Nua
Green Party
Labour
People before Profit
Sinn Féin
Socialist Party
South Kerry Independent
Workers and Unemployed Action Group [WUAG]
Workers’ Party.

Accordingly, I decided to email them all, enquiring whether they had asked the [then] Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs for information “relating to the costing, assessment or consideration of the restoration of some or all of the abandoned Ulster Canal”. I added that, if they had done so, I would be grateful for a copy of the query they put to the department and of the response they received. I told them that I was sending my query to all political parties that contested the 2011 general election (or at least to all those for which I could find an email address).

That was not quite true: I omitted the South Kerry Independent Alliance, on the grounds that its interest in the Clones Sheugh was likely to be limited (I am of course open to correction on this). Furthermore, I was unable to find any website or email address for WUAG so I did not send my request to them.

Fianna Fáil logic

All of the other parties had websites and email addresses — except one: Fianna Fáil. Now, strictly speaking it falls outside the range of parties in which I might have been interested: not just for the obvious reasons but because it was in government at the time and would automatically have had full access to the civil service costings (such as they were). But I was interested to note that Fianna Fáil did not provide an email address on its website: interested enough to ring it and ask for an email address for its press office. The polite receptionist asked someone and told me that the address to be used was pressoffice@fiannafail.ie.

So I sent my query to that address. And I got back an autoresponse saying

This email is not monitored. For urgent queries you can contact the FF Press Office on 087 955 5600.

Well I never. What was the point of that?

Labour gains

Anyway, the results so far put Labour in the lead: I got an almost immediate informal response from Dermot Lacey, saying that he didn’t think Labour had contacted the department; I also got a more formal response next day, from Mags Murphy, Director of Councillor Services and Training, saying:

Labour did not include a specific commitment to the development of the Ulster Canal in our manifesto in the 2011 Election.

However, Labour is keen that all practical possibilities for cooperation, reconciliation and mutual benefit, including maximising tourism potential from a development of the Ulster Canal would be considered seriously as part of our deep commitment to the Good Friday agreement.

To this end, the Labour members of the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement committee visited the Ulster Canal, Enniskillen and Clones with their cross-party colleagues for a range of meetings on 27 September 2012 with Waterways Ireland officials, local councillors and community groups.

Oh dear. Still, brownie points for responding.

What is the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement committee?

Where are the others?

I am still awaiting responses from the other political parties.

Declaration of non-interest

I did not vote for any of those parties.

 

Leave a comment

Posted in Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Foreign parts, Industrial heritage, Ireland, People, Politics, Tourism, Ulster Canal, Uncategorized, waterways

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Da new kidz in da hood

Posted on Tuesday 2 October 2012 | Leave a comment

A couple of canally sites I hadn’t come across:

  • da corpo’s canal (h/t IndustrialHeritageIreland)
  • Dublin canal walks. I don’t know who is behind this site, which looks like a work in the early stages of progress, but I’m all in favour of folks’ walking along Dublin canals; my own effort at encouragement is here.

Industrial Heritage Ireland, by the way, has been watching the Clones Canal campaign. This suggests that the campaign is being cranked up, although I don’t know what the poor buggers from the NI Strategic Investment Board are doing in the group: pouring money into holes in the ground is not (pace Keynes) usually seen as an investment.

It is reported, nonetheless, that IWAI folk are confident that public money will be wasted on the ghastly project, thus subsidising their hobby. And it seems that a gang of Irish parliamentarians, following the tradition established in Grattan’s Parliament, are keen to distribute pork: there is nothing in the press release to suggest that any of the poor dears have any interest in assessing the costs and benefits of the Clones Canal proposal. In the unlikely event that any of them is interested, the pages starting here might be useful. And interested parliamentarians might like to check on any cost-benefit analyses done (or revised) since it was found that the canal would cost €45m, not €35m.

 

Leave a comment

Posted in Drainage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Foreign parts, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Sources, Ulster Canal, waterways

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Arthur’s Day

Posted on Thursday 27 September 2012 | Leave a comment

There is quite a modern branch of trade risen up in Ireland — I mean the exportation of Dublin porter. I am not a proprietor in the brewery, and, in praising the beverage, which I consider most excellent, I cannot be considered to be actuated by interested motives. But, it is a curious fact, that, a few years ago, Ireland was an importing country of porter, while, at the present moment, a very considerable export trade is growing up in Dublin.

In this point, and, perhaps, in this point only, I fully expect the learned member for Dublin [Daniel O’Connell MP] to concur with me. I only venture to entreat hon. Members opposite, who wish to give some activity to the trade of their country, to encourage the fermentation of the vat, rather than the fermentation of politics. By so doing, they may greatly improve our trade and our internal condition; and, if they will but take my advice, I, for one, shall be ready, most heartily, to drink their healths in their own porter.

Thomas Spring Rice, MP for Cambridge (and previously for Limerick), Joint Secretary of the Treasury, in a House of Commons debate on the repeal of the Act of Union on 23 April 1834. On this site, you’ll find more on Daniel O’Connell here and on Uncle Arthur here.

Leave a comment

Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Economic activities, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Non-waterway, People, Politics, Sources

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

One for liveaboards

Posted on Tuesday 25 September 2012 | Leave a comment

A Polish/German artist is showing an exhibition in Chelsea about an English houseboat community. Indie story here and photos here; if googling for “What the water gave me”, include the artist’s name Dubno to avoid results about a song by a hip beat combo. WI can count its blessings.

Leave a comment

Posted in Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Foreign parts, People, Scenery

Tagged , , ,

The Lagan and Lough Neagh in 1830

Posted on Monday 17 September 2012 | Leave a comment

Philip Dixon Hardy wrote in The Northern Tourist, or Stranger’s Guide to the north and north west of Ireland: including a particular description of Belfast, the Giant’s Causeway, and every object of picturesque interest in the district referred to William Curry, Jun and Co, Dublin 1830:

The river Lagan, although of very considerable breadth in the immediate vicinity of Belfast, and running nearly thirty miles, is yet by far too inconsiderable to be of any great advantage to the town in the way of trade or commerce. By its means, however, a regular communication is kept up between Belfast, Lisburn, and Lough Neagh. Since the year 1755, upwards of £100,000 have been expended in forming a canal, by the assistance of cuts in various places along the line of the river, where it was found too shallow for lighters to pass.

The Lagan Navigation Company have now the direction of the entire line, and have made such judicious improvements, as materially to promote the desired object — a speedy transit of goods and merchandise. This, however, can, after all, be only partially accomplished, as, from the circumstance of the Company not being able to have a horse-track-way along the entire line, nor to introduce steam power, the journey can be performed in a much shorter space of time by waggons and drays going direct. On Lough Neagh there is a small steam-vessel, by which the goods taken up in the lighters are rapidly conveyed to the different towns which lie in various directions round that extensive sheet of water.

W A McCutcheon, in The Canals of the North of Ireland David and Charles, Dawlish 1965, confirms the point about the trackway:

As a result [of various improvements in the early 1800s] traffic greatly increased, though water supply problems remained, and there was a horse-towing path for only part of the length of the navigation.

He gives no details, though, so I don’t know why the trackway was incomplete, how lighters travelled on those stretches that had no trackway or when and how the deficiency was remedied. My guess is that those stretches were along the river rather than the artificial cuts and that the riparian landowners were unhelpful, but I would welcome further information.

McCutcheon does not mention the steamer on Lough Neagh. However, D B McNeill mentions it in Coastal Passenger Steamers and Inland Navigations in the North of Ireland Belfast Museum and Art Gallery Transport Handbook No 3 1960:

The first steamer on the lough was the Lagan Navigation Company’s Marchioness of Donegall. She was built by Ritchie and MacLaine of Belfast, her engines were obtained from David Napier of Glasgow and she was launched at Ellis Gut in November, 1821. She was the first inland navigation steamer in Ireland and was used for towing the Lagan canal boats across the lough. When new, she was reputed to have had a speed of two knots. She was uneconomical and her owners tried to sell her in 1824, but there were no buyers. It is believed the Marquess of Donegall used her occasionally as a yacht. She was broken up sometime about 1840 and her engines were stored in Belfast.

In his Irish Passenger Steamship Services Volume 1: North of IrelandAugustus M Kelley Publishers, New York 1969 he says that the Marchioness was a wooden paddle steamer, built in 1821 and broken up in 1843, 73′ long with a beam of 16′, with a simple single-cylinder engine. He says that the engine cost £1,400, provided 30hp and gave her a speed of 6 knots. A passenger service was considered but never provided, but picnic parties could charter the boat for five guineas a day.

 

Leave a comment

Posted in Built heritage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Irish inland waterways vessels, Operations, Sources, Steamers, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Nothing whatsoever …

Posted on Thursday 23 August 2012 | 1 comment

… to do with waterways.

Or even with Ireland.

I hope.

h/t Tyler Cowen. Isn’t Economics interesting?

1 Comment

Posted in Foreign parts

Tagged ,

Low water levels …

Posted on Wednesday 22 August 2012 | Leave a comment

… on the Mississippi.

Maybe we could sell them some from the Shannon.

Leave a comment

Posted in Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Operations, waterways

Tagged , ,

Committing golf

Posted on Tuesday 21 August 2012 | 3 comments

What is the World Corporate Golf Challenge? And why is Waterways Ireland sponsoring it?

Or is it?

Google found about ten mentions of an event called the “Irish qualifier” for the “Waterways Ireland World Corporate Golf Challenge” including this one from the NI Chamber of Commerce, which you might expect to have better things to do with its time. However, despite what some sites suggest, I suspect that (unless it has lost its penkas completely) WI is sponsoring only the “Irish qualifier” and not the entire worldwide event. WI’s website search engine returns no relevant information.

The World Corporate Golf Challenge (I’m already reaching for the sickbag) doesn’t seem to have heard of Ireland (or of Waterways Ireland), although it lists Northern Ireland as a participating country. So is this an “Irish qualifier” or a “Northern Irish qualifier”?

The WCGC, whose website tells us where the 2010 final will take place,  seems to work by licensing organisations to run local competitions. The Northern Ireland licence is held by Lough Erne Resort, where the 2012 “Irish qualifier” will be held on 25 September; it has delegated the organising of the event to Posnett Golf, which will have a special offer but doesn’t yet know what it is. The resort was placed in administration in May 2011 and may now be for sale.

But why is WI sponsoring this event? It’s just going to attract a pack of Nigels and Patricks who, on a Tuesday, should have their feet under their desks saving the Northern Ireland economy. And all of them have already, I suspect, heard of Lough Erne, and of golf, so I don’t see what WI expects to gain from this.

Incidentally, have you ever noticed that golf is essentially a less exciting variant of Eeyore’s game?

But Eeyore wasn’t listening. He was taking the balloon out, and putting it back again, as happy as could be ….

3 Comments

Posted in Ashore, Economic activities, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Ireland, Operations, Tourism, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , ,

Waterways walks

Posted on Tuesday 31 July 2012 | Leave a comment

Look!

Waterways Ireland and a local authority have cooperated in opening a canalside walking and cycling path!

And an excitable minister opened it, saying

This has huge potential for tourism but it also has a huge knock on effect for communities in the health benefit facilities like this bring and this, in turn has benefits in reducing the press on our health services as well. I want to see more walkways because I want to see more people out walking and seeing the natural beauty that we here in Ireland are blessed to have around us.

And rightly so. But you don’t need an expensive canal in order to provide a walk.

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Posted in Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Forgotten navigations, Irish waterways general, Natural heritage, Non-waterway, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Scenery, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,